Morny wrote:Kurieuo wrote:
... [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.
