Evidence for God from Science

I don't know Morny.

If you couldn't tell I tired of our exchanges a page or two back when I tried being mean to you.
Perhaps we just walk away on this one?

I'll leave it at the following I think with you.
Feel free to respond and I may get back in a month or so.

BUT, I think Plantinga's argument (detailed as E and N => ~R) is a valid argument.
By that I mean that the conclusion follows from the premises.

I think R is clearly true however.
Which results in E or N (or E and N) not being true.

Keep in mind that Plantinga isn't about proving that we can't trust our rationality.
So that is not really his argument at all. It is that Evolution and Naturalism are incompatible if we do accept our rational thinking as true.

So push backs on Plantinga's argument tend to focus upon the truth of R.
Something like species would not survive if they had false beliefs, therefore evolution and its survival of the fittest will generally result those lifeforms which have true beliefs surviving. Great. So now we now that R is true, and the E is true. What about N?

If Plantinga's argument is valid, then N must not be true.
And by N it is meant a world where only the natural world exists without the existence of any intelligent being like God planning or guiding any natural processes. Nature is simply following unguided and random processes.

So, I've been as explicit here as I think is possible.
You have your final words.

Much respect to you (depsite any disrespectful comments herein).

Kurieuo

Hello Kurieuo

It has been some time since the last post, but I came across this thread again and noticed your post and it seems to me to repeat the same mistake about the EAAN.
You write E+N=-R is valid. Then claim that as R and E are true, N must be false. However, R is clearly not true, evidenced by the very many false beliefs held. If E+N=-R is valid then N is true.
Regards
Jonesm

So your mind or rationality (R) is telling you that there are many false beliefs, just not yours? Did our brains, and minds as such if we indeed reduce the mind to our brain and natural processes, evolve for survival?

This thread caught my attention again. It seems to me, that criticisms of the EAAN argument often lack an understanding of what is being argued.

When Plantinga says there is a "defeater" for 'E' (Evolution) and 'N' (Naturalism) given 'R' (rationality) can't be trusted, he's not necessarily arguing that 'E' or 'N' isn't true. Rather it is more the case that 'E' and 'N' along with any other belief we hold to for that matter, lacks warrant or justification because 'R' (which can't be trusted) is always being used to prove such beliefs. Whether or not 'E' or 'N' is true, well it may/may not be, but we just can never justify such either way. Perhaps it is more an argument for anti-rationalism than anything else. Thus, the person who believes in both 'E' and 'N' are unbeknown to themselves being anti-rational.

Case in point is where you (Jonesm) say, "R is clearly not true, evidenced by the many false beliefs had." Well, if 'R' (rational faculities) are clearly faulty, then nothing warrants belief. Why? For any belief that has warrant comes via rationality, but if our rational faculties are faulty, then any warrant for beliefs are lost too. This includes 'E' and 'N' as well as basically any belief.

What is absurd, is for people like perhaps yourself, who'd in their next breath argue that 'E' and 'N' are both true (which leads to 'R' not being trusted). You're in effect pulling the rug out from underneath yourself, cutting off the branch on which you are sitting. For if our rational faculties can't be trusted, then neither can we rationally argue 'E' and 'N' are true; OR, if we argue 'E' and 'N' are true then how can we trust our rational faculties which arose in a world via such processes alone by pure accident? This, is really a knock down argument, not against the truth of 'N' and 'E' per se, not against 'R', but rather against a rationally coherent or justified secular belief system that says both 'N' and 'E' are true.

ortuksur wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:34 am The argument was first proposed by Alvin Plantinga in 1993 and “raises issues of interest to epistemologists, philosophers of mind, evolutionary biologists, and philosophers of religion SurveyZop applebees

Hello, ortukisur - and welcome to the forum! Tell us a bit about yourself!

Philip

I hate to say this because naturalism is a silly world view IMO to accept but although a case today might can be made that evolution makes more sense from a theistic perspective? When evolution was first proposed by Darwin it was supposed to be naturalistic evolution and today I've noticed that theistic evolutionists and naturalistic evolutionists tolerate each other even though both sides think the other one is wrong,they do this because of scientists like Ken Miller who have greatly come out defending evolution and yet is a theist. But both sides still think the other side is wrong.

This thread caught my attention again. It seems to me, that criticisms of the EAAN argument often lack an understanding of what is being argued.
panoramacharter.ltd

192.168.1.1

romelitzs wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:15 am This thread caught my attention again. It seems to me, that criticisms of the EAAN argument often lack an understanding of what is being argued.
panoramacharter.ltd

192.168.1.1

Romelitzs, glad to have you on the forum.

In my view, evolution, whether true or false, would explain nothing from a creation / origin / theological point, because of the instant appearance and beginning of the universe at the Big Bang's beginning, with extraordinarily complex things and designs IMMEDIATELY coming into existence. And, also immediately, as opposed to some massive chaos of random things, the precision assembling of the foundational (and JUST-right and necessarily dependent) elements of the universe began. Add in the fine-tuning of conditions with billions of years, all of which were dependent upon the amazing foundational elements that immediately came into existence at the Big Bang's start. And ALL of that was necessary, BEFORE the immense, statistically improbable and massively complex conditions to support life became possible. And THEN, given the miraculous fact that so many mathematically improbable odds of such life-supporting conditions had come into existence - THEN, one must also explain how non-life produced living organisms. So, arguing over the truth or falsity of evolution, from a theistic standpoint, is totally irrelevant. It's sort of like arguing over the ending minutes of a movie, in which you never saw or understood the beginning, know about the characters, the plot development, themes, action, etc. - and especially without any knowledge of who wrote and produced it. Evolution would have been a FAR (billions of years later) process that was entirely contingent upon the mystery of what happened nearly 14 billion years ago, at our universe's birth.

So, people can argue over evolution - but that's not where the discussion should begin, as the Big Bang events are what truly need to be explained - with such amazing things of astounding designs and functions all instantly appearing and cross-functioning with perfect precision and trajectories. These things have awed our best scientists and minds for a century, with our understandings of them scarcely touching the surface of even understanding how it all worked, much less how they were even possible. Are we to believe our planet's best minds can't understand an event and such spectacular things of breath-taking designs and functionalities, and if they were supposedly produced by pure chance and blind, random things - things which previously did not exist? Because blind things don't and can't think, calculate, strategize, plan, design, anticipate, see advantages - and nor can they create themselves or their unfathomably astounding functions and interactions. These many miraculous things required an Intelligence far beyond what we can understand!




BTW, Romelitzs, what is your spiritual view - are you a theist? I see you're not a Christian.

Did our brains, and minds as such if we indeed reduce the mind to our brain and natural processes, evolve for survival?

panoramacharter.ltd

192.168.1.1

romelitzs wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 5:42 am Did our brains, and minds as such if we indeed reduce the mind to our brain and natural processes, evolve for survival?

panoramacharter.ltd

192.168.1.1

Evolve from what? Animals? A Biblical-based answer would note that God created the animal kingdom entirely independent of His creation of man - and that He created the first humans fully developed in mental ability and brain capacity. So, here's a short answer from a scientific and Christian perspective, from Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons.org - you'll find a lot more at reasons.org.

https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... the-apes-2