tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post3016715804616845887..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Alvin Plantinga on warrant for belief, naturalism, and evolution mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76514662704257956622013-09-04T19:51:58.363-04:002013-09-04T19:51:58.363-04:00"For without the pioneering work of Muhammad ..."<i>For without the pioneering work of Muhammad ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi, there would not be Algebra ...</i>"<br /><br />This clain is, of course, false. The ancient Greeks developed algebra. Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33407765305490171212013-09-04T15:20:28.222-04:002013-09-04T15:20:28.222-04:00Science is not testable. Falsification is required...Science is not testable. Falsification is required. Try to improve your school knowledge, please!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-50196069055523448512013-09-04T15:19:08.687-04:002013-09-04T15:19:08.687-04:00But definitely not a atheist.But definitely not a atheist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-45484371151247166552012-09-06T08:26:20.715-04:002012-09-06T08:26:20.715-04:00You know what intuition is.
Nearly all your choi...You know what intuition is. <br /><br />Nearly all your choices and beliefs are guided by it. You subject very little in your life to detailed scientific analysis. <br /><br />In fact, the most important things in your life are those which are guided by intuition-- love, trust, happiness. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-24968639315751321152012-09-05T23:41:19.375-04:002012-09-05T23:41:19.375-04:00Michael,
What is intuition? If you don't kno...Michael,<br /><br />What is intuition? If you don't know what it is, then you can't claim that it's a better method for making choices.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36226571244318055632012-09-03T12:46:38.408-04:002012-09-03T12:46:38.408-04:00So, Darwinism isn't 'science', then?
...<i>So, Darwinism isn't 'science', then?</i><br /><br />Since you clearly don't understand the theory of evolution by natural selection, or any of the other fields of science that you mention, you probably should go back and take some remedial classes before you make a fool out of yourself some more.<br /><br /><i>Plantinga does not "argue" on the basis of subjective feelings</i><br /><br />Of course he does. His "probabilities" are entirely made up. Plantinga's "logic" is wishful thinking because he invents from whole cloth every thing that he starts with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-10320360809063908812012-09-03T12:42:42.265-04:002012-09-03T12:42:42.265-04:00Until an 'atheist' admits that "God i...<i>Until an 'atheist' admits that "God is", he really doesn't have a place in the conversation</i><br /><br />As long as you believe fairy tales, there's no reason to take you seriously on any subject. Keep pretending, but your drivel is empty and hollow, and the fact that it is being exposed as such frightens you to your core.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-54542960372514815492012-09-03T12:39:38.373-04:002012-09-03T12:39:38.373-04:00M.Egnor: "I point out that intuition plays a ...<b>M.Egnor:</b> "<i>I point out that intuition plays a much greater role in our lives than does the scientific method. Our most important personal relationships, our deepest beliefs, our habits, our likes and dislikes, our self-image are all based almost entirely on intuition.</i>"<br /><br />Actually, it goes even deeper than that.<br /><br />ALL our knowledge, including all rational knowledge we, whether individually or corporately, have acquired (of which any 'scientific knowledge' which happens actually to be true is but a subset) is based <i>entirely</i> on intuitive knowledge. For example, that [<i>1+1=2</i>] ant that [<i>1+1!=n (where n!=2)</i>] are not know via reason but via intuition -- we know these statements are true because we know they are true -- and then, on the basis of knowing those truths intuitively, we can know, rationally, that [<i>2+2=4</i>] and that [<i>2+2!=n (where n!=4)</i>]Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37176223658550581022012-09-03T12:27:32.086-04:002012-09-03T12:27:32.086-04:00Fiend for Intellectual Dishonesty: "Science i...<b>Fiend for Intellectual Dishonesty:</b> "<i>Science is testable. Reality is testable. Plantinga's subjective feeling that there's a god is not testable. Not now. Not ever.</i>"<br /><br />Here is a bit of reality that is testable -- these people are not only intellectually dishonest, but they are also irrational: they will *always* retreat into irrationality, they will always deny that we can even reason and discover, much less know, truth when the truth discovered by reason is "God is". They make this retreat for two reasons:<br />1) it they did not make the retreat, they would be admitting that "God is" is true;<br />2) the denial that we can even reason and know truth, in the first place, <a href="http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/2010/01/you-cannot-reason.html" rel="nofollow">is actually a logical entailment of the denial that "God is"</a><br /><br />========<br />Until an 'atheist' admits that "God is", he really doesn't have a place in the conversation which is the topic of the OP. Until an 'atheist' admits that "God is", he's just a "troll" -- and we who wish to better understand the topic of the OP should not be feeding the trolls.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36676826753718527182012-09-03T12:16:09.989-04:002012-09-03T12:16:09.989-04:00Fiend for Intellectual Dishonesty: "Science i...<b>Fiend for Intellectual Dishonesty:</b> "<i>Science is testable. Reality is testable. Plantinga's subjective feeling that there's a god is not testable. Not now. Not ever.</i>"<br /><br />Hmmmm.<br /><br />So, Darwinism isn't 'science', then? Well, I always did expect as much.<br /><br />Then, there is 'xenobiology', a "science" without a subject matter to even observe, yet plenty of "experts" doing the non-observation.<br /><br />Oh! Let us not forget "string theory" or "M theory" or whatever they call it these days.<br /><br />And the so-called "multiverse" -- of which, by definition, not even in principle, can any tests ever be conducted.<br /><br />And who can forget this bit of "science"? -- "<i>Consider this claim: as I walk along, time -as measured by my wristwatch or my ageing process -slows down. Also, I shrink in the direction of motion. Also, I get more massive. Who has ever witnessed such a thing? It's easy to dismiss it out of hand. Here's another: matter and antimatter are all the time, throughout the universe, being created from nothing. Here's a third: once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street. They're all absurd! But the first is a statement of special relativity, and the other two are consequences of quantum mechanics (vacuum fluctuations and barrier tunnelling,* they're called). Like it or not, that's the way the world is. If you insist it's ridiculous, you'll be forever closed to some of the major findings on the rules that govern the Universe. <br /><br />*The average waiting time per stochastic ooze is much longer than the age of the Universe since the Big Bang. But, however improbable, in principle it might happen tomorrow.</i>" --- <a href="http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/2010/07/science-and-miracles-and-skepticism.html" rel="nofollow">Reader, don't you think it odd that these "skeptics"</a> will affirm the assertion that "<i>once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street</i>", because someone asserted that assertion is '<i>Science!</i>, that they will affirm this assertion even though no one has ever claimed to have observed it, even though by its very nature it isn't testable, YET these same "skeptics" will adamantly deny that anyone has ever observed an iron axehead float to the top of the water in which it had been lost, even though someone did claim to have witnessed exactly that?<br /><br /><b>Fiend for Intellectual Dishonesty:</b> "<i>Science is testable. Reality is testable. Plantinga's subjective feeling that there's a god is not testable. Not now. Not ever.</i>"<br /><br />These people are intellectually dishonest -- their "skepticism" is <a href="http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/2010/06/skepticism.html" rel="nofollow">highly selective</a>, their self-toutes committment to "reason" is a sham. Plantinga does not "argue" on the basis of subjective feelings (but these fools and liasr will and do), he argues and reasons on the basis of the most rationally trustworthy tool we have, <i>sound logic</i>.<br /><br />These people are intellectually dishonest -- <i>they are worse than liars</i>; for liars merely lie about some fact or other, but these people lie about the very nature of truth and of reason and logic.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-42007209245934033752012-09-03T10:22:38.355-04:002012-09-03T10:22:38.355-04:00@bach:
Plantinga's discussion of the reliabil...@bach:<br /><br />Plantinga's discussion of the reliability of intuition of course is not the same thing as his evolutionary argument against naturalism. <br /><br />I point out that intuition plays a much greater role in our lives than does the scientific method. Our most important personal relationships, our deepest beliefs, our habits, our likes and dislikes, our self-image are all based almost entirely on intuition. <br /><br />Richard Dawkins loves his wife and daughter deeply, I'm sure, and he's never done any scientific experiments to prove it. <br /><br />Plantinga is right. We are right to give our intuition credit for affirming very important things. No one in their right mind-- especially not atheists-- subjects the most important things in life to the scientific method.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-20238508065507804762012-09-03T08:10:20.374-04:002012-09-03T08:10:20.374-04:00Can somebody post a picture of a sample of pure nu...Can somebody post a picture of a sample of pure numbers? Maybe a phial or beaker of 'ones' (not the yellow type - the actual number). Could somebody provide me with a physical example of a number greater than one. Of course, I don't mean two apples - that is just evidence of apples. <br />I want to see the 'two' please. <br />Once you have managed that, perhaps an example of negative integers? <br />Thanks. <br />:)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72589815796257986822012-09-03T08:06:28.940-04:002012-09-03T08:06:28.940-04:00"Science is testable. Reality is testable.&qu..."Science is testable. Reality is testable."<br />Your testimony/assertion of faith in a specific method of inquiry above all others is uncharacteristically honest, Bach - but the assertion adds nothing to the conversation. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58913781962871665972012-09-03T03:42:57.711-04:002012-09-03T03:42:57.711-04:00The only rationale for apologetics existing is to ...The only rationale for apologetics existing is to provide arguments for believers to believe. They need not be good arguments, and indeed, actually they're very bad ones, as this video shows. If the arguments were good, there wouldn't be so many many atheists around. Not only that, if the arguments were good, they'd even convince those who are inclined to believe to convert to Christianity..<br /><br />Science is testable. Reality is testable. Plantinga's subjective feeling that there's a god is not testable. Not now. Not ever.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-89962639960866231602012-09-03T01:58:26.974-04:002012-09-03T01:58:26.974-04:00Actually, my fantasies are about a tryst with an i...<i>Actually, my fantasies are about a tryst with an idiot. </i><br /><br />Ah, so you are into autoeroticism. Predictable. Do you stare into the mirror?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46192180612144097952012-09-02T22:29:05.288-04:002012-09-02T22:29:05.288-04:00Actually, my fantasies are about a tryst with an i...Actually, my fantasies are about a tryst with an idiot. <br /><br />I'm starting to get tingly...mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12573926270408313502012-09-02T22:24:47.355-04:002012-09-02T22:24:47.355-04:00I'm not saying that individual scientists from...I'm not saying that individual scientists from other cultures didn't contribute to modern science. Of course they did.<br /><br />I said that modern science arose from Christian culture. That is a matter of simple fact. There were of course some scientists who came from other cultures who contributed, but they did so in a Christian milieu.<br /><br />If I'm wrong, tell me about all of the great contributions to modern theoretical science (not engineering or mathematics, which have multicultural origins) by Islamic, atheist, or pagan cultures. <br /><br />The Scientific Revolution was a Christian revolution. If I'm wrong, provide me with evidence to the contrary. Specifics.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18068319753980303042012-09-02T21:50:47.911-04:002012-09-02T21:50:47.911-04:00Apparently Japan China and all atheists contribute...Apparently Japan China and all atheists contribute "Nothing" to science. What a ludicrous point of view. So if there are atheists and Christians working in the same lab only the Christians know anything? Christians waste valuable time reading the same text over and over again and going to church. Atheists can spend more time researching. Anyway Christians, for being so allegedly bright, have failed to tell us which Christian religion is the right one. <br /><br />Please go away and let us get on with some work. When you have figure out the answer to this problem get back to. Even the two Republicans candidates cannot agree on which cult is the right one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12951221893067566742012-09-02T21:22:28.308-04:002012-09-02T21:22:28.308-04:00Refute his argument.
Why would anyone need to? Pl...<i>Refute his argument.</i><br /><br />Why would anyone need to? Plantinga refutes his own argument by saying that the probabilities of an event that already occurred are "inscrutable" and then pulling made up probabilities out of his ass. He has already misused probability in his argument and says up front that what he purports to be calculating is unknowable.<br /><br />Plantinga's argument is a joke, and he knows it. You are too addle-brained to see it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-8387457532924801892012-09-02T21:19:28.684-04:002012-09-02T21:19:28.684-04:00You're such a tease...You're such a tease...mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66692529607870854492012-09-02T21:18:38.574-04:002012-09-02T21:18:38.574-04:00Anon is already hitting on me. You'll have to ...<i>Anon is already hitting on me. You'll have to wait your turn.</i><br /><br />So your secret sexual desires are revealed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76121298787913336422012-09-02T20:35:47.449-04:002012-09-02T20:35:47.449-04:00@Wa:
[The idea that science is "Modern theor...@Wa:<br /><br />[The idea that science is "Modern theoretical science is wholly a product of Christian civilization, and depends utterly on the Christian understanding of creation and God." is extremely flawed.]<br /><br />I am referring to modern theoretical science-- physics, chemistry, biology, etc. <br /><br />Other sciences-- math, logic, engineering etc have arisen in many cultures. <br /><br />But is simple historical fact that modern science as we understand it is wholly a Christian achievement. <br /><br />The fact that you name one individual-- in math, not science-- makes my point, not yours. <br /><br />The Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century is a Christian revolution. In recent times, scientist from other cultures have of course contributed, but they are almost always trained in historically Christian universities and systems. <br /><br />Islamic science, pagan science, etc have been astonishingly sterile. Deal with it. <br /><br />[So clearly, your statements about science are outright lies and distortion for personal gain.]<br /><br />Describe the modern scientific contributions-- not engineering, not math, but modern theoretical science-- that has come entirely from non-Christian cultures. <br /><br />Until you can, it's not me who is lying and distorting.<br /><br />And what, pray tell, would be my "personal gain" in tutoring you on the history of science?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27694742143751272292012-09-02T20:22:31.800-04:002012-09-02T20:22:31.800-04:00@bach:
[Do you actually believe that your senses ...@bach:<br /><br />[Do you actually believe that your senses give such an unreliable picture of reality and that your beliefs are true but not adaptive? Really?]<br /><br />Plantinga's main interest in philosophy is warrant for belief: what reasons do we have to think that our beliefs are true. For some beliefs (boiling water will burn us) trial and error are sufficient warrant. For other beliefs (God is the Prime Mover, Pi is an irrational number) trial and error are not sufficient. We must use logic and abstract thinking. Even for some beliefs that seem to be confirmable by trial and error may not be absolutely demonstrable by trial and error. Many different beliefs might explain a given outcome. <br /><br />Plantinga argues that our abstract beliefs-- mathematical proofs, theology, abstract reason-- do not seem to have a tight correspondence to reproductive success. If anything, distraction by such things may reduce our fecundity. The football star, not the philosophy nerd, gets the girls, and the offspring. <br /><br />Thus, our beliefs, if they are evolved, evolve to increase fecundity, not to increase ability to discern abstract truths. It may be that in some instances there is a correspondence between fecundity-increasing beliefs and abstract-truth-discerning beliefs, but that is not a necessary correspondence, and can easily be a negative correlation. <br /><br />Therefore, evolved beliefs are not a reliable guide to abstract truth. They are a reliable guide to optimizing fecundity. <br /><br />[Plantinga is basically saying that our senses are unreliable, which is true but trivial, and that are beliefs are adaptive but not necessarily true, which is correct in some but not all circumstances, and again trivial.]<br /><br />His point is not trivial at all. Beliefs that are true but not adaptive will not be favored by selection, and will tend to disappear. <br /><br />[Our senses are fallible, because our brains have to interpret the imperfect sensations they receive. That's the reason why we have science with its objective measuring devices.]<br /><br />So what? <br /><br />[And he's claiming that his subjective senses and wishes are more reliable than his objective senses? He wants to reject science, which is testable, with something which isn't and never be?]<br /><br />We're discussing his evolutionary argument against naturalism. Stay on topic. <br /><br />[Absolute nonsense.]<br /><br />If your opinion that his views are absolute nonsense does not increase your reproductive success, it is not an evolved opinion. <br /><br />If it is not evolved, how did you come to have the opinion?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-52313446229267383392012-09-02T19:55:38.684-04:002012-09-02T19:55:38.684-04:00I shouldn't have to tell you that he was most ...I shouldn't have to tell you that he was most definitely not a Christian.Wahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15520856337948243657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-42060854685447960332012-09-02T19:54:37.913-04:002012-09-02T19:54:37.913-04:00The idea that science is "Modern theoretical ...The idea that science is "Modern theoretical science is wholly a product of Christian civilization, and depends utterly on the Christian understanding of creation and God." is extremely flawed. <br /><br />For without the pioneering work of Muhammad ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi, there would not be Algebra, which forms the foundation of Calculus, and Calculus of course forms the bedrock of modern theoretical science. <br /><br />So clearly, your statements about science are outright lies and distortion for personal gain.<br /><br />Wahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15520856337948243657noreply@blogger.com