Notice how people who actually study philosophy are more tolerant with the idea of God... Even atheist philosophers don't find God to be an "absurdity".
I met a solipsist once - I walked up and punched him squarely in the mouth. From then on out, the fool could never figure out why he was suddenly filled with such self-hatred...
You missed a lot of the joke, @@JP-hr3xq After the Buddhist asks if the hod dog vendor if he could make him "one with everything", the hot dog vendor makes the hot dog and hands it to the Buddhist, who pays with a $20 bill. The vendor puts the bill in the cash box and closes it. "Excuse me, but where’s my change?" asks the Buddhist.
The vendor responds, "Change must come from within."
This dialogue is wonderful. They're so sober and respectful in how they address each other, and Plantinga's answers to some of the questions are highly illuminating. The Adam and Eve scenario he suggests is particularly intelligent.
EXCEPT it doesn't agree with the Bible. If Adam and Eve came about by evolution this means that there was death BEFORE sin which the Bible (Paul) definitely doesn't support. There is no compromise between macroevolution and Bible creation.
Horus isn't a god in the sense of monotheism. I picked the Christian God because I've constantly questioned him, and every time I do, I find more and more evidence that the Christian God does exist.
The interviewer is simply in over his head. He’s not qualified. I don’t know the details; he probably has other areas of expertise. Platinga maybe could fill in gaps and “steel-man” the interviewer’s arguments to make his own replies more interesting and to show extra class and graciousness. Then again maybe Platinga was expecting something else and surprised. Well whatever.
@ibperson7765 The interviewer is Daniel Greco, a philosopher now at Yale . The first few of his questions were just some common questions other philosophers typically raise with regard to Plantinga's argument, which I think were totally fine to be raised in the setting of a talk for non-philosphers.
By the way, I used to claim the mantle of atheism and all the while I felt two things: 1) Anger towards this supposed non-existent God which made me a creature without peace, and 2) That gnawing feeling that my atheism was dead wrong. When I said there is no god, this inner voice would seem to say, "who are you kidding?" I would think of all those laws and complexity of animals as self aware machines and KNEW this couldn't be dumb luck. I was lying to myself. That's why atheists are so angry.
Let's clarify our terms here. "...your brain is malfunctioning if you think that god is inside the set of everything that exist and at same time creates the set of everything that exist. Your claim is contradictory and violate your own definition of the set" . The statement that "God created the universe" (the theist position) doesn't require God to create himself, since the universe and God are separate -- the universe arose from God, not the other way around.
+Rat Bastard How about a philosopher who teaches (or has taught) in the graduate school of philosophy at one of the most respected university in the nation with one of the largest philosophy departments?
Prosper . Just because a professor teaches at a respected graduate school does not mean he is over Scrutiny. Isn't philosophy literally the exploration of thoughts? Someone's reputation/qualifications is/are not a contributing factor/factors.
@@brettdeacon7012 whatever 'quals' i could claim are irrelevant to the empty honorific of whomever may be labelled as 'world class' - though i must admit that i was momentarily tempted to join you for some boastful bragging about my own place in academia. no, it's something of an ad hominem to suggest my question is ignorant, but also something of an appeal to your own supposed authority to proclaim such an honorific as deserved by plantinga. aren't fallacies fun? hope you made something out of that history degree anyway
@@jokerxxx354 Are you guys seriously asking the question who created God in a philosophy video. God by definition has no creator. If God is created, he isn't God.
Regarding the question at 4:40, I have a concept I call "How Did I Evolve?" God expects us to "evolve." Making decisions that increase our chances of survival doesn't earn us any medals, nor is it antithetical to a theistic view; it's merely part of our responsibility as created human beings. See Luke 17:10.
They should have someone interview Plantinga who was already familiar with his work and philosophy of religion in general. This guy seemed to be a bit confused about it all.
In my humble opinion, if you consider that "God Exists" is a top-down argument, and that "evolution holds true" is a bottom-up argument, then the interaction between these opposing viewpoints is quite rightly considered argumentative. But what should be said as well is that it is much more likely that, if God Exists, then everything comes together, including the chaos or random events or mutations, and including even the infinite and thus the unknowable. But even saying all of this is true, is it not also a possibility that we are living in a hologram, and assuming that we have accomplished the important things toward an ultimate goal, rather than actually achieving it? (A dream experience seeming to be real, but of course you wake up from and then have to face the brutal reality or challenges you in your dream thought you escaped)
Very interesting talk. One small thing, though- Bertrand Russell actually was never a solipsist, but he did recount (in his book Human Knowledge) the time Christine Ladd Franklin wrote to him about her being a solipsist but being surprised that it wasn't a more popular stance.
I think it’s easier. If you think beliefs are not just their neural-physiological states, but *also* have content, then you are already not a physicalist.
39:00 that example of "we believe there are other people" is un-cogent because it isn't that we "believe" there are people. We KNOW they're their based on empirical evidence, namely that they're there and we're looking at them! It is entirely different to have faith in things that we don't see or we have no explanations for. I also do think that when you push a person of faith hard enough they will tell you that they believe because "how else can you explain the world and the oceans and the eye and the blood vessels..." etc. Do we have a genetic connection with faith? of course we do because we belong to generations of people who had one kind of faith or another, but the important question is: does that make god real?
+ahmed barakat Regarding "we believe there are other people", I think that a solipsist might argue that you cannot know that what you believe is empirical evidence is anything more than a projection of your mind and that there would be no way of knowing otherwise.
Tim Crinion actually Tim, It's not the same empirical evidence. We live a real world with real things and real consequences, form which we deduct and infer and solve puzzles. The more puzzles we solve the bigger our brain (of course I'm overly simplifying). Dreams seem to be a state of mind reflecting on those realities in an abstract manner and sometimes we are able to weave stories that we can recollect later.
It seems like the same evidence to me. I have been just as convinced, while dreaming, that I'm talking to someone in the street as I have been when I *really* talk to someone in the street.
Tim Crinion when you're dreaming, you're not in a logical state and you don't conduct yourself with rationality, so if a donkey starts to talk to you, it's ok because you dreamt him up. What I'm saying is reason is required to deduct evidence and when you're dreaming, evidence ain't exactly the point.
Anyone thinking the guy with Plantinga got interrupted a lot as a child ? Or maybe he capitalizes all the words in a sentence and talks like he writes...
Take A Moment Relax The answer is 42. What, then, is the question? Select your shower of myth and sit down, and watch. Professor My fellow ape Thank you for your work. Like millions of fellow apes, I have listened to your words my entire life. 64yrs and still never met up. Who would have thought it? Stay Safe and Stay Free 🎉❤
Argument from 30:00 to ~35:00 is circular: Dr. Plantinga asserts/assumes a dualistic, model for beliefs then infers that the world can't be purely material. Asserting that beliefs have both neuro-physiological and (immaterial) *content* properties, he's assumed his conclusion.
Unless you have noted the wrong time frame and he does so elsewhere, Plantinga does not put forward a circular argument. He does not conclude from his assertion of a dualistic noetic structure that the world is not purely material. In fact, it is his assumption that the world has immaterial attributes that allows him to propose his dualism. I do not intend to say that Plantinga is infallible, but the guy is known for his logical precision; I doubt that he would make an obviously fallacious inference.
Rodion Raskolnikov Plantinga falsely assumes that truth content would be contained in a configuration of neurons if materialism was the case, and then argues against the possibility of his absurd assumption. This is strawman argumentation. The evaluation of the truth values of beliefs occurs at a different level of ratiocination than long-ingrained "facts" such as truisms or mathematical formulae. Evaluation of beliefs is a dynamic process far removed from somatic evolution for survival. "Thinking" is not best described by saying that beliefs are static patterns of neuronal clumps. Thought is a dynamic and continuous process of internal communication between various regions of the brain which enables truth values of beliefs to be evaluated and altered based on the evidence of experience.
cruelsuit1 Perhaps you should be more clear about what your point is. First, I am not sure that his argument is a strawman argument. Second, I am not sure that you have shown how Plantinga does commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. I am not saying that you are wrong, but I do not see how you are right.
Rodion Raskolnikov He gave a simplistic explanation about what a "belief" is in the brain and argued against the simplistic explanation which he himself provided.
cruelsuit1 First, I do not see how that is relevant to the contention concerning the circularity of the argument that David posed in the above comment. Second, whether his explanation is or is not simplistic is irrelevant, it's whether or not it is true or false that matters. One could argue that every explanation we give of any particular position is simplistic to some degree; such a claim is relative to the complexity the argument necessitates. In philosophy, simplicity and accessibility can be seen as a virtue. Besides, I doubt that neurologists can give a true account of belief formation. Anyways, I fail to see how your abstruse account of belief formation exposes the trouble in his argument. Show me how your account of belief formation is a better account and why it subverts a particular premise in his argument. If I had to guess, I would say that you disagree with his point about how neurological activity occurs prior to and independent of the content of the belief that it adopts. But why should your account be taken as a better account than his? Because yours is more complex? Of course, that does not make your account of belief formation a better one. If you read his actual argument, you will find that it is much more complex than what he presents here, in the Veritas presentation. Perhaps you would prefer to read the EAAN rather than listen to this discussion.
I'm glad that Platinga is not a Calvinist. The idea that God forces people to sin, judges them for their sins, then burns them in Hell forever to show us all how much he hates sin, is repugnant to me. But then again, maybe I'm not a member of the "Elect" and therefore cannot understand the "ways of God".
It certainly matters what harm WE do to people because we are not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. God can make even death a good thing, we cannot. You can't really generalize human ethics onto God because God operates on a whole different level than we do.
I don't agree with everything he says. But I don't think he's "cocky". As far as God creating the universe from nothing...He spoke it into existence. Why is it impossible for some pompous folks to think that God can do something that humans can't?. Even among humans, some can do things others can't, for example, I can talk with logic whereas some on here obviously can't. Whatever brought the universe into existence had to be outside of the elements of the universe. Is that so hard to understand
That moderator sounds like he drank three triple espressos before the forum began! It's especially incongruous given Alvin Plantiga's laid-back style...
God is a King and has a kingdom and HE has a constitution which are HIS wasys of doing things. HIS intent is that earth mirror the heavenly goverment. We are Spirit who live in a physical body and when one die they don't actually die but rather leave the physical body and return to the one he obey on this earth. Repent and obey Torah and know that HE is no respector of persons but whosoever obeys HIM shall be with HIM.
nazra7 Me too! I just said that. I said it differently like everything proceeded out from Him but I agree. So even when they say something can’t come from nothing, I agree. 😄
"Find a christian creed that says that God created everything ex nihilo" All major brands of christian superstition support the notion of creation ex nihilo. Energy, like speed and distance, is a measure of a physical thing, therefore is physical.
Where does Spirit, Thought ,Instinct,Intellect..and most importantly, imagination emanate from? Throughout history, most inventors, musicians, artists, writers ..the list is long.....received their gifts, through channelling, it came through them in dreams, visions and like Mozart flowed .... We should really understand this. The arrogance
Around min. 49 - asks if discovering an evolution explanation for beliefs would cause us to wish to dispense of a belief. Induction is such a belief - yet no one is willing to dispense of it ... So, why don't we just stop believing in induction (there's no rationally compelling reason to believe it's true).
And they can never give a physicalist explanatory model for intentional states and yet insist mind is equal to brain. They then add, but one day science will answer that question. Nobel laureate and neuroscientist John Eccles referred to that as "prommissory materialism." Others call it the "science of the gaps."
How is it possible for someone like Plantinga to have a Ph.D. in philosophy and not understand how discerning truth is so important to survival? There's a fight for survival, and the humans with the best technology will wipe out the competitors. That's why new science is usually weaponized as soon as possible. This is so easy to grasp, so why can't a guy with a Ph.D. in philosophy get it?
The belief that "That shadow moving across my field of vision is NOT a dangerous predator intent on eating me" is probably true most of the time. By contrast, "That shadow moving across my field of vision IS a dangerous predator intent on eating me" is false most of the time. But the second belief, although less likely to be true, is certainly more adaptive in the long run, because it stimulates an adaptive response -- running back to the cave or climbing a tree, just in case. That's why adaptivity, not truth, is the goal of evolution. Evolution knows nothing of human technology -- it's still in the stone age because it moves too slowly to keep up with technological advances. Cockroaches have nearly zero intelligence, and therefore nearly zero knowledge of truth, but they are very adaptive, and they've been around a lot longer than humans have. They'll probably be here after we're gone, too. believersareidiots.blogspot.com/
If you were born to a world devoid of pain, suffering, and sin. How would you value or even appreciate life? This would be like living in a candy store your whole life until the point of diminishing returns/lack of appreciation/too familiar to the point of disenchantment. It is only through the agency of our very fragility/vulnerability/morality/impurities that we can be judged by God. If God were to have created "perfection", He would then have created a foregone/boring/predictable outcome - that would make us robots/mere machines without choices to appreciate or not-appreciate. And therefore could NOT be judged.
Well that is what philosophy is sir. Everything can be question with critical thinking, but lets forget about that and focus on what you said. I understand your point about significance of negative to appreciate positive, but the question is how much? How much evil, sin, pain and suffering do you expect an all powerful god to make us appreciate the +ve? How do you explain evil like a 3 year old daughter being molested and sexually abused by her own father? How do you explain things like holocaust and hate for different races in general or other horrible things? You get my point. If God is all powerful and all good, God can reduce or balance the degree at which these horrible things happen at a high rate.
Elisha didn't call for the bears, he cursed the children. With equal probability to your accusations, the bears showing up could be merely coincidental, and the curse on the children was probably God's unwillingness to defend them because of their mocking and probably others events not listed. Also, it doesn't say the extent of the injuries. With equal probability to there being severed limbs, it could also be nothing more than mere scratches. We don't know.
Note: Dr. Platinga did not really answer to the question of evil in “God’s world”. Because he or any other religious person or scholar can’t really answer the question. The right answer us there is no god to stop evil.
It just says God is the creator of all things, it doesn't necessarily mean that he created everything from nothing. It could mean that everything was created from the same substance that he is composed of, just as I theorized. Thank you.
Solipsism comes in multiple forms. One version holds that one's own existence is the only thing that can be known for certain. Not necessarily that one is the only thing that exists.
Just because they support it doesn't mean they require it. So again, please give me any Christian creed that says that God created everything ex nihilo. What I mean by "physical" is whether or not its made of matter. God and energy are not made of matter thus are not physical in that sense. God ad energy also supernatural in the sense that supernatural means beyond the limitations of nature just as superhuman means beyond the limitations of human beings.
Check this out though. It doesn't say the children were killed, it only says that they were mauled. And furthermore, it doesn't say God sent those bears to attack them. So, its only your assumptions that says God had done something wrong there. Also, there are many things in the Bible that is way ahead of its time. The idea that the universe had a beginning, the idea that you should love your enemies, ect. These were not commonplace in those times.
I agree. It's nice to run into someone who makes the distinction between a methodological description and an ontological explanation. Atheists just don't seem to get that point. Like me, i would venture to say that for you God isn't merely the god of the gaps but, in Lennox's words, the God of the whole show. He's the God of the things we do understand as well as the things we don't.
If you create a clay pot and you move that clay pot from your front step inside your house, would that be morally wrong? Why then do you accuse a Creator of moving his creation from one location to another? The people were actually warned through Noah but most of that generation mocked him and lived in their sin. The judgment was actually brought upon themselves. I don't know if you still needed an answer for this but that would probably suffice.
Where do you get this idea that killing >99% of life on Earth was ok?? Jews & Christians say that the event occurred and that it was necessary but few of them say that it was ok. Try reading Genesis 6:6 before making such a flippant comment.
Why scientist not debating with a religious scholar it means all the scientist are a confused just read Quran and then debate with Muslim scholar you will get a logical scientifical answer inshallah or at least see a RUclips channel Peace TV Dr Zakir Naik and debate with them in front of educated people.
For one thing, the idea of animals being evil is pretty bizarre. I wonder what horrible things the frogs were doing!? This story doesn't bother you because you don't question yahweh's decisions. For you, anything he does is 'good' by default. But this is a moot point since the flood was debunked scientifically. I don't know why you take the bible stories literally. They actually make sense when you don't.
I agree totally, that most of the stories must not be taken literally! That is exactly the problem which athism uses as a "proof" againt Christians!!! Berdyaev Nicolas "The destiny of man" is a very good book on that subject!!!
The point is that given that explaination of origin, Naturalism forces you to adopt the unreasonable position that there no NO chance our faculties, from random variation and natural selection, could be unreliable whatsoever. Therefore, Atheism is unreasonable.
@@Againstfascist What your saying is false, just because it's possible to be wrong doesn't mean every reasonable conclusion we arrive is therefore wrong. This is proven by all the cases we are able to correctly explain event in reality. Plantinga's argumentation is philosophical nonsense that tries to argue that naturalism is unreasonable by fiat.
@@illithidhunter6177 If your cognitive faculties could be wrong, how could you know what was wrong and what wasn't? You couldn't. Now, you could say that the odds of your cognitive faculties being correct are higher than not, therefore you are reasonable in believing in their validity. But in every way that behavior could relate to the content of belief, under Naturalism, there is a low probability of the content being true. Therefore you would need to be agnostic about pretty much about everything.
If to alter the environment of heaven, the Angels may very well gasp for air ( their version), as would we. My point is simply: even God requires a method of himself through which to canvas, convey, and animate ANY type of medium or being. Imagine even the most bizarre dimension or place and I'll imagine its inhabitants feel the same of yours..."familiarity breeds contempt" (aka: disenchantment)
I don't know why such miscommunications exist between us. I never admitted that God's actions are indefensible. In his defense, he has complete power over everything and therefore can make even death a good thing. We cannot. For example, a CEO of a company has more privileges than an entree employee because the CEO has more power over the company. God is the CEO of the universe, and we are like the entree employees. A CEO has the right to fire his employees. God has the right to take life.
For a catholic born like me, the idea that science conflicts with religion is just absurd - and historically incorrect. I must say, though, that I disagree about the political position of Dawkins - he's not a leftist. Stephen Jay Gould was a leftist and he had no problem with religion.
Barbarism is pure evil, causing destruction and pain without any good to come of it. Giving the children eternity of peace and happiness for a small moment of pain isn't "barbarism". Besides, its not theists' moral grounds that you should be questioning since its not us doing these thing. Only God is allowed to deliver punishment like that because only he can make it a good thing.
And no amount of intelligible evidence will convince the most hardened atheist. But if you're so into empirical evidence, here's your chance to prove materialism is the authentic worldview. Let me direct you to the Quantum Randi Challenge (for anyone claiming to be able to prove objective realism in quantum mechanics): arxiv. org/abs/1207.5294 To bone up, see Physical Review A (65,033818) 2002 and the more recent 2012 Physics Essays Publication. [DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.2.157] in 2012
And please don't try and tell other people why the believe a particular thing. That sort of assumption is the cause of many problems in the world and leads to many strawman arguments.
nazra7 but you’re also making a statement as to what people should believe. Mainly that they believe that they shouldn’t be telling others a particular thing to believe.
So because there's a heaven it doesn't matter what harm you do to people since they end up in a good place? That's basically saying morality doesn't matter and anything goes. You don't think god does good things, you think things are by definition good when god does them. Meaning morality based on him is meaningless.
It’s not meaningless. I actually do think God does only morally good things. If He said everyone needed to die in a flood to start over He was right and just in His judgement. He isn’t human. Humans don’t have the right to judge the entire world based on their evil thoughts. We don’t know their thoughts. We didn’t make the place. We don’t have any super long term goals for earth. Like, 6000 years from now I want the earth to look like this and these are the things I’m putting in place so that those humans can do this at this time. No, you were in His Devine plan, from the beginning, as was I. And the way for you and I to happen, were everything that happened before us. We’re in the plan, do we want to be involved in the plan, or do we want to sit on the sidelines and watch?
And what is your point? Of course God cannot do the impossible. For example, God cannot make a triangle have four sides. That does not show that God doesn't exist.
Because almost everything was evil and corrupted. People ask why God doesn't get rid of the evil in the world. The answer is he did once with the flood, and after that he promised not to flood the world again no matter how evil it became. There are many explanations to the misconceptions people have about Christianity, but there's not an explanation for everything.
that's all kind of just pulled out of thin air with nothing to back it up besides your feelies. you admit gods actions are indefensible so you're basically rationalizing it to yourself by saying yeah but it doesn't count.
What's worse is when your hubris won't even allow you to admit you're wrong. There's ways to suggest an idea is irrational without calling someone stupid. And your analogy of Santa and god is ridiculous. And not all Christians threaten with hell-some don't even believe in hell or they are universalists. You conflate every person and every theoloogy.
"Why?" Why is something you ask other humans, we do that a lot so we ask why to everything but science deals with "How?". You wouldn't ask a ant why it walked a certain path. The laws aren't gravity itself, we created those laws to approximate how we observe gravity to work. The laws are obviously physical, they are written and exist in the brains of many people but the laws aren't the phenomenon, just like a map isn't the territory it maps. en wikipedia org/wiki/Map-territory_relation
The fast negation against atheism for me is this: upon a stage I actually and truly levitate an elephant before the eyes of an atheist. A minute before I ask him to examine my actual and real magic of elephant levitation, I also ask him to pop a most beautiful balloon with a provided pin - he popped the balloon as I requested. 2 Hours later I allowed the atheist to understand how I ACTUALLY and TRULY levitated the elephant. Two beautiful things were removed from his world in 2 hours with 2 pricks. Disenchantment comes from familiarization - look back to your childhood when everything was MAGICAL.
At my short stay at NYU I've met and admired some stunningly brilliant minds as my professors. You can say that it was a Divine Hand that steered me away from any interaction with that religious nut fart fanatic.
lol they dont want there to be evidence therefore there is no evidence lol. I ask them for evidence that they exist and they can't even answer it, its because they accept plausible evidence in that situation but not for God.
Nah I'm not ignoring those things. Yes they seem troubling if you believe that the grave is the end. But in reality, those children basically got a free ride to heaven. At the same time, the message of respect has been delivered to those who are disrespectful. And so, God basically solved 3 problems with one solution. Now how's that for efficient management? What person can offer better results? You see, atheists are not theists because they truly do not understand God.
One Person's individual Truth is another Person's Lie..Plantinga isnt telling the truth but neither is Dawkins,both have a different world view,so I find an illogical and petty Plantinga and WLC think they have refuted Dawkins or Carrier or Erhman et al.
"Why does 1+1=2?" Because God said so. By the decision of the Almighty, 1+1=2. It could be 5 or 398, but God in his holy wisdom decided for 2, so superstitious people like you would be able to build sound arguments like "1+1=2, therefore, God is not imaginary". Brilliant!
And if you can't see the implications of how materialism proven false can tie into incorporeal consciousness and that men are not their bodies, then why are we even having this discussion? And yes, if you want to convince me that your worldview is correct, you will have to prove that materialism is true. You can either do that or waste more time posting this prattle on RUclips. Do that, and you'll defeat nearly every believer and win the Nobel Prize.
Do people really believe Alvin Plantinga is a world-class philosopher? How can someone listen to this guy and really belive his argument to be anything but just sophistry?
You should tell all the editors at top-rated journals and prestigious publishers to offer retractions to his decades of work. I’m sure you can convince them.
Elisha called for the bears in the name of the lord, and they came. And did you really say 'only' and 'mauled' in the same sentence? O_O Anyway, there are so many examples of gods bloodlust and obsession with killing. Just look at the story of Noah, he drowns almost every living creature.
Plot in the sky with stars "I exist, repent or perish forever" is a good start. It would be piece of cake for an omnipotent being who cares about showing his creation that he exists. I don't need to prove materialism is true. Materialism can be false and still, you have not an inch of evidence that the Universe was created by an omnipotent being who wants to have a personal relationship with you.
atheist think complexity = conscience thought lol. As if a super computer will ever become aware of itself. If matter and energy is all there is we should not be aware of ourselves, we would be nothing more than machines pre programmed to do x y z with no awareness of our choice between x y and z
"Sounds like circular reasoning to me" Nope. Sounds as simple Set Theory to me. Unless you are prepared to deny necessary mathematical truths, anything that is outside the set of real things can't be real. The christian god, therefore, is delusional by logical necessity.
Lol. You are presupposing mathematical truths to prove that truth exists from Naturalism in an absolute sense. That's called circular reasoning. Here is you: 1.) Mathematical truth exists. 2.) Naturalism accounts for all cognitive functions. 3.) Therefore truth exists due to Naturalism. Let's do this another way: 1.) God created everything. 2.) God accounts for all cognitive functions. 3.) We have cognitive functions, therefore God exists. You have to start in a place that doesn't assume the conclusion.
Yes, you're assuming that God has to be outside reality to create everything that is in reality. Thus Circular reasoning. Sorry but setting up your own idea of God, then disproving that is completely pointless. Its also called a strawman fallacy. Now, are you going to continue with your fallacious nonsense or are you going to admit that you don't know much at all of what you're speaking of? Because that is quite obvious to everyone else here.
If God created the universe from nothing, then it is possible for something to com from nothing, and you should stop saying that such event is not possible. The next thing you need to show is why you need a god for the event to happen. If you think it is impossible for something to come from nothing, the honest conclusion is that the universe don't come from nothing, so a god who create ex nihilo does not exist by logical necessity and the christian god is falsified.
How intellectually lazy to think that you've some how disproven God because I've offered an alternative theory? Find a christian creed that says that God created everything ex nihilo, otherwise, I will continue to laugh at your lack of knowledge about the Christian God. God is not physical in the same way that energy is not physical. Yet energy is used to create matter. God is also said to create matter. See the resemblance?
Why talk about evolution? Plantinga should be talking about the conflict between a round earth and the bible. It's obvious many of the authors from the old and new testament and the apocrypha were flat earthers(there are many references I could give). And yet not a single one of the authors can be shown to believe in a round earth.
Correct, this is a fair question and applies to other cosmological aspects such as a solid dome keeping out a primordial chaos ocean upon which the living stars move as well. The biblical authors all believed in a flat earth consistent with the cosmology of all the ANE cultures. This is addressed by OT theologians such as John Walton, Michael Heiser, and Sandra Richter among a myriad of others. It comes down to whether God would have interest in correcting scientific worldview or whether he would be solely interested in communicating a message via preexistent worldview. Essentially their assertion is that it's a bit like if I go to America and make a Seinfeld reference in conversation to illustrate the value of relationships: I'm utilizing the existing cultural milieu, a fiction significant to society, to communicate something valuable. The biblical authors, in particular, like to adopt other materials to develop polemics against other ANE religions and illustrate attributes of Yahweh. Augustine argued a similar position in the 4th century as well so this is viewed as an orthodox Christian position. Hope that helps.
Isaac Johnson You have no idea how satisfying it is to finally find someone who understands what written in there. So much ducking and dodging, but finally someone here who get's it. And the answer to those theologians' question is of course, no. A good god would not lie to his creations about brute scientific facts like that to make things more understandable to them. In fact, the gospels and prophetic books are full of cases where disciples or prophets do not initially understand some weird symbol or story and it has to be painstakingly explained to them by Jesus or an angel or what have you.
Your welcome, and I understand, unfortunately there are a great many seminarians, ministers, apologists, and laity who can be a tad ignorant to ancient context. It doesn't help that there are odd ducks out there like the Answers in Genesis folks spreading blatantly inaccurate and unorthodox information that flies in the face of centuries of sound scholarship. Prophecy and apocalyptic literature are interesting genres that have their own literary quirks (there really aren't modern genre equivalents, so they are truly alien to the modern reader). There are also issues regarding type and antitype and the way NT writers adopt OT works to describe Christ as antitype which isn't always prophetic the way a 21st-century person would describe the prophetic. The modern North American view of the prophetic as future telling would be exceedingly rare in the ANE as most would have considered prophecy the revelation of present and at times past divine truth. There is some which is strictly future telling, but it is a minuscule amount. Kaiser and Silva do a great job on breaking down how little material could be considered proper future telling in the OT; that being said there are some genuine instances of future telling that is not typological that are applied as Christological future telling worth considering as possible. I appreciate your stance, and would have held it myself at one point, but to some extent I would challenge the notion that not revealing science when it is inconsequential to message necessitates a lie. We don't apply this to mothers with their children for example because we understand the prioritization of a particular message as ethical given children won't comprehend all the scientific fact anyhow. Pragmatically, there is also the issue that no ancient person would consider and spread a message that coincides with scientific features that no one yet believed nor could anyone verify at the time. Hypothetically, why introduce an insignificant cognitive barrier if one wanted to communicate a profound truth? Furthermore, there is a bit of a Western modernist worldview bias at play in emphasizing scientific accuracy in communication that is not universal to all cultures at all times that we should at the very least step back from and evaluate the validity of. We may find that, indeed adopting cultural perspectives that are scientifically inaccurate to couch a point universally constitutes a lie, at which point you are entirely correct and the biblical accounts should be invalidated, or we may end up with a slightly different conception of communication where prioritization of salient point via preexisting belief is valid and there may yet be the possibility of truth within the biblical texts (this would not of course prove the existence of God, but would continue the possibility of the Christian God). ;-)
According to the dictionary, a lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. And to deceive is to cause someone to believe something that is not true or invalid. And a lie by omission would be one thing, if he just never mentioned the roundness of the earth. But to actively fabricate imagery and create false visions and inspire people to write things that actively reaffirm flat earth belief, even when the Romans already knew the earth was round; that's simply immoral. And God would know how his books would be used throughout history to validly deny accurate science. There's just no excuse for that kind of negligence. And if we know God lies about science, that is, if he's dishonest about his own creation and humans' place in it, then why stop there? He might be dishonest about his own character and his own plans too. And this is actually affirmed by the difference between Old Testament God and New Testament God. I don't know, I just don't see a single excuse for God on this one; lying about his creation.
A couple of observations: I'd be cautious not to adopt the fundamentalist-literalist view of divine inspiration. A fundamentalist-literalist believes that the human authors of divine texts are kind of like a holy typewriter and that a divine entity is choosing every letter on a scroll, it's a completely untenable position that no serious theologian holds. Unfortunately, you are going to run into a fair number of people that do hold that position, untenable as it is, but most theologians disagree with fundamentalist-literalism and would hold that a divine message is transmitted to a human author and that the human author has a fair amount of freedom in couching that message. You could still say that God allowed them to perpetuate their flawed scientific worldview, and that's a valid criticism, but it does leave it not quite so cut and dry. There is still a little bit of Western 21st century bias in applying that definition of a lie, as not all cultures at all times would agree in applying it to utilizing myth to make a point. However, if you are sure that all communication requires accurate scientific worldview to be expressed in order to be true, and moreover that a deity would be required to do so, then you've come to a fair and reasonable conclusion. I'd still ruminate on it a bit because as the late Hiebert points out, recognizing worldview biases that have been transmitted to us can be incredibly difficult and not all of our perspectives that we perceive as absolutes are by necessity absolutes. That may not change perspectives on the possibility of divine communication, you may step back for a week or two and still say "yep, this is accurate and universal," but it is an interesting exercise nonetheless to step back and evaluate how much our own milieu, for better or for worse, actually influences the way we fundamentally perceive the world and to what extent that has influenced us.
A meter is a name designator given to a unit of measurement. Its distance was fixed based upon the propagation of light in a vacuum over a unit of time. What is your point? So, you're simply defining God to be imaginary and letting that be the end of it? So, in effect you are dodging my point by making a definition that conveniently confirms your hypothesis about God. Nice. Well, then, I declare that you are imaginary and thus not worth the trouble of taking seriously.
My point is that I can predict how many gallons (another arbitrary unit) of ink I need to cover a wall using the meter. Why you don't think the meter is god given or why you don't claim it is some mysterious, supernatural truth about reality? I'm not defining god as imaginary. God is an imaginary being. If he isn't, the burden of proof to show otherwise is on you.
Notice how people who actually study philosophy are more tolerant with the idea of God... Even atheist philosophers don't find God to be an "absurdity".
Well that just proves that "philosophy" rots ya brain!
@@r.i.p.volodyaor that you're brainless.
@@r.i.p.volodya that's what a sect thinks
because that is the god of the philosophers, the god of Aristotle. What is absurd is the christian god
@@henpines How is the Christian God absurd? be very specific with just one example.
Dr. Plantinga sounds like a wizard when he speaks.
I met a solipsist once - I walked up and punched him squarely in the mouth. From then on out, the fool could never figure out why he was suddenly filled with such self-hatred...
I did that to a Buddhist, and he said, "Ouch." I asked, "What is that?"
You missed a lot of the joke,
@@JP-hr3xq
After the Buddhist asks if the hod dog vendor if he could make him "one with everything", the hot dog vendor makes the hot dog and hands it to the Buddhist, who pays with a $20 bill.
The vendor puts the bill in the cash box and closes it. "Excuse me, but where’s my change?" asks the Buddhist.
The vendor responds, "Change must come from within."
Jarrod Kennedy
golden 😂👍🏻
This dialogue is wonderful. They're so sober and respectful in how they address each other, and Plantinga's answers to some of the questions are highly illuminating. The Adam and Eve scenario he suggests is particularly intelligent.
EXCEPT it doesn't agree with the Bible. If Adam and Eve came about by evolution this means that there was death BEFORE sin which the Bible (Paul) definitely doesn't support. There is no compromise between macroevolution and Bible creation.
Horus isn't a god in the sense of monotheism. I picked the Christian God because I've constantly questioned him, and every time I do, I find more and more evidence that the Christian God does exist.
this interviewer was tough to listen to--Plantinga is a bad ass and will go down as one of the all-time greats
"Plantinga is a bad ass and will go down as one of the all-time greats"
All time great what, is my question.
Yes
The interviewer is simply in over his head. He’s not qualified. I don’t know the details; he probably has other areas of expertise. Platinga maybe could fill in gaps and “steel-man” the interviewer’s arguments to make his own replies more interesting and to show extra class and graciousness. Then again maybe Platinga was expecting something else and surprised. Well whatever.
@ibperson7765 The interviewer is Daniel Greco, a philosopher now at Yale . The first few of his questions were just some common questions other philosophers typically raise with regard to Plantinga's argument, which I think were totally fine to be raised in the setting of a talk for non-philosphers.
Wish Plantinga had more talks on RUclips!
By the way, I used to claim the mantle of atheism and all the while I felt two things: 1) Anger towards this supposed non-existent God which made me a creature without peace, and 2) That gnawing feeling that my atheism was dead wrong. When I said there is no god, this inner voice would seem to say, "who are you kidding?" I would think of all those laws and complexity of animals as self aware machines and KNEW this couldn't be dumb luck. I was lying to myself. That's why atheists are so angry.
Let's clarify our terms here. "...your brain is malfunctioning if you think that god is inside the set of everything that exist and at same time creates the set of everything that exist. Your claim is contradictory and violate your own definition of the set" . The statement that "God created the universe" (the theist position) doesn't require God to create himself, since the universe and God are separate -- the universe arose from God, not the other way around.
+Jake Danger i just want them to first define 'world class philosopher'
+Rat Bastard How about a philosopher who teaches (or has taught) in the graduate school of philosophy at one of the most respected university in the nation with one of the largest philosophy departments?
Prosper . Just because a professor teaches at a respected graduate school does not mean he is over Scrutiny. Isn't philosophy literally the exploration of thoughts? Someone's reputation/qualifications is/are not a contributing factor/factors.
@@brettdeacon7012 whatever 'quals' i could claim are irrelevant to the empty honorific of whomever may be labelled as 'world class' - though i must admit that i was momentarily tempted to join you for some boastful bragging about my own place in academia. no, it's something of an ad hominem to suggest my question is ignorant, but also something of an appeal to your own supposed authority to proclaim such an honorific as deserved by plantinga. aren't fallacies fun? hope you made something out of that history degree anyway
@@jokerxxx354 Are you guys seriously asking the question who created God in a philosophy video. God by definition has no creator. If God is created, he isn't God.
Plantinga is awesome. Cheers from Aotearoa NZ.
Regarding the question at 4:40, I have a concept I call "How Did I Evolve?" God expects us to "evolve." Making decisions that increase our chances of survival doesn't earn us any medals, nor is it antithetical to a theistic view; it's merely part of our responsibility as created human beings. See Luke 17:10.
They should have someone interview Plantinga who was already familiar with his work and philosophy of religion in general. This guy seemed to be a bit confused about it all.
Alvin's work is hard - can't just absorb it in a few hours.
Wow - the interviewer is completely clueless.
Aren't we all?
In my humble opinion, if you consider that "God Exists" is a top-down argument, and that "evolution holds true" is a bottom-up argument, then the interaction between these opposing viewpoints is quite rightly considered argumentative. But what should be said as well is that it is much more likely that, if God Exists, then everything comes together, including the chaos or random events or mutations, and including even the infinite and thus the unknowable. But even saying all of this is true, is it not also a possibility that we are living in a hologram, and assuming that we have accomplished the important things toward an ultimate goal, rather than actually achieving it? (A dream experience seeming to be real, but of course you wake up from and then have to face the brutal reality or challenges you in your dream thought you escaped)
Very interesting talk. One small thing, though- Bertrand Russell actually was never a solipsist, but he did recount (in his book Human Knowledge) the time Christine Ladd Franklin wrote to him about her being a solipsist but being surprised that it wasn't a more popular stance.
Interestingly, Bert's student, Wittgenstein, was obsessed with the issue of solipsism.
I think it’s easier. If you think beliefs are not just their neural-physiological states, but *also* have content, then you are already not a physicalist.
39:00 that example of "we believe there are other people" is un-cogent because it isn't that we "believe" there are people. We KNOW they're their based on empirical evidence, namely that they're there and we're looking at them! It is entirely different to have faith in things that we don't see or we have no explanations for. I also do think that when you push a person of faith hard enough they will tell you that they believe because "how else can you explain the world and the oceans and the eye and the blood vessels..." etc. Do we have a genetic connection with faith? of course we do because we belong to generations of people who had one kind of faith or another, but the important question is: does that make god real?
+ahmed barakat Regarding "we believe there are other people", I think that a solipsist might argue that you cannot know that what you believe is empirical evidence is anything more than a projection of your mind and that there would be no way of knowing otherwise.
Ahmed the same "empirical evidence" that means we KNOW other people exist could also make us KNOW that people in our dreams when we sleep exist.
Tim Crinion actually Tim, It's not the same empirical evidence. We live a real world with real things and real consequences, form which we deduct and infer and solve puzzles. The more puzzles we solve the bigger our brain (of course I'm overly simplifying).
Dreams seem to be a state of mind reflecting on those realities in an abstract manner and sometimes we are able to weave stories that we can recollect later.
It seems like the same evidence to me. I have been just as convinced, while dreaming, that I'm talking to someone in the street as I have been when I *really* talk to someone in the street.
Tim Crinion when you're dreaming, you're not in a logical state and you don't conduct yourself with rationality, so if a donkey starts to talk to you, it's ok because you dreamt him up. What I'm saying is reason is required to deduct evidence and when you're dreaming, evidence ain't exactly the point.
Anyone thinking the guy with Plantinga got interrupted a lot as a child ? Or maybe he capitalizes all the words in a sentence and talks like he writes...
Take A Moment
Relax
The answer is 42.
What, then, is the question?
Select your shower of myth and sit down, and watch.
Professor
My fellow ape
Thank you for your work.
Like millions of fellow apes, I have listened to your words my entire life.
64yrs and still never met up. Who would have thought it?
Stay Safe and
Stay Free 🎉❤
Argument from 30:00 to ~35:00 is circular: Dr. Plantinga asserts/assumes a dualistic, model for beliefs then infers that the world can't be purely material. Asserting that beliefs have both neuro-physiological and (immaterial) *content* properties, he's assumed his conclusion.
Unless you have noted the wrong time frame and he does so elsewhere, Plantinga does not put forward a circular argument. He does not conclude from his assertion of a dualistic noetic structure that the world is not purely material. In fact, it is his assumption that the world has immaterial attributes that allows him to propose his dualism. I do not intend to say that Plantinga is infallible, but the guy is known for his logical precision; I doubt that he would make an obviously fallacious inference.
Rodion Raskolnikov Plantinga falsely assumes that truth content would be contained in a configuration of neurons if materialism was the case, and then argues against the possibility of his absurd assumption. This is strawman argumentation. The evaluation of the truth values of beliefs occurs at a different level of ratiocination than long-ingrained "facts" such as truisms or mathematical formulae.
Evaluation of beliefs is a dynamic process far removed from somatic evolution for survival. "Thinking" is not best described by saying that beliefs are static patterns of neuronal clumps. Thought is a dynamic and continuous process of internal communication between various regions of the brain which enables truth values of beliefs to be evaluated and altered based on the evidence of experience.
cruelsuit1 Perhaps you should be more clear about what your point is. First, I am not sure that his argument is a strawman argument. Second, I am not sure that you have shown how Plantinga does commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. I am not saying that you are wrong, but I do not see how you are right.
Rodion Raskolnikov He gave a simplistic explanation about what a "belief" is in the brain and argued against the simplistic explanation which he himself provided.
cruelsuit1 First, I do not see how that is relevant to the contention concerning the circularity of the argument that David posed in the above comment.
Second, whether his explanation is or is not simplistic is irrelevant, it's whether or not it is true or false that matters. One could argue that every explanation we give of any particular position is simplistic to some degree; such a claim is relative to the complexity the argument necessitates. In philosophy, simplicity and accessibility can be seen as a virtue. Besides, I doubt that neurologists can give a true account of belief formation. Anyways, I fail to see how your abstruse account of belief formation exposes the trouble in his argument. Show me how your account of belief formation is a better account and why it subverts a particular premise in his argument.
If I had to guess, I would say that you disagree with his point about how neurological activity occurs prior to and independent of the content of the belief that it adopts. But why should your account be taken as a better account than his? Because yours is more complex? Of course, that does not make your account of belief formation a better one. If you read his actual argument, you will find that it is much more complex than what he presents here, in the Veritas presentation. Perhaps you would prefer to read the EAAN rather than listen to this discussion.
Plantinga is a Calvinist? I learned something new today.
Reformed Epistemology - in some way, is derived from John Calvin, or at least Calvin held to some mode of knowing for certain by way of the Spirit.
***** Interesting. I need to look into what "Reformed Epistemology" is with respect to Calvinistic/Thomistic views.
God Bless
Plantinga is a Molinist, which is largely what Arminius was, himself.
And no: Molinism/Arminianism is NOT semi-Pelagianism.
I'm glad that Platinga is not a Calvinist. The idea that God forces people to sin, judges them for their sins, then burns them in Hell forever to show us all how much he hates sin, is repugnant to me. But then again, maybe I'm not a member of the "Elect" and therefore cannot understand the "ways of God".
+James Gadomski (Barely Protestant) Plantinga comes from the Dutch Reformed Tradition. I've never heard him claim to be a Molinist.
Too much lip smacking! Especially from the interviewer!
It certainly matters what harm WE do to people because we are not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. God can make even death a good thing, we cannot.
You can't really generalize human ethics onto God because God operates on a whole different level than we do.
I don't agree with everything he says. But I don't think he's "cocky". As far as God creating the universe from nothing...He spoke it into existence. Why is it impossible for some pompous folks to think that God can do something that humans can't?. Even among humans, some can do things others can't, for example, I can talk with logic whereas some on here obviously can't. Whatever brought the universe into existence had to be outside of the elements of the universe. Is that so hard to understand
That moderator sounds like he drank three triple espressos before the forum began! It's especially incongruous given Alvin Plantiga's laid-back style...
True that. But I liked his question even tho some had obvious answers
Anybody in the comments know what he means by losi? I'm probably slaughtering the spelling. Around 1:20:00
"loci," i.e., the plural of "locus."
According to the Nicene Creed, God is the "Creator of all that is seen and unseen." So there you are - one creed that teaches creation ex nihilo.
Glenn Peoples He created all but it doesn’t say from nothing. It proceeds from Him. His words are something.
Greco sounds like he's mimicking one of his professors. I doubt that's his normal cadence.
It also sounds like he really, _really_ wants to commit incest.
Levi Paladin Are you morally sick?
Functional Savants No, are you?
Levi Paladin
Do you like incest?
Functional Savants Maybe Levi thinks Greco bringing up incest repeatedly was kind of ridiculous or distracting, and maybe derailing the topic somewhat
Berdyaev Nicolas "The destiny of man" is a very good book on that subject!!!
God is a King and has a kingdom and HE has a constitution which are HIS wasys of doing things. HIS intent is that earth mirror the heavenly goverment. We are Spirit who live in a physical body and when one die they don't actually die but rather leave the physical body and return to the one he obey on this earth. Repent and obey Torah and know that HE is no respector of persons but whosoever obeys HIM shall be with HIM.
I believe that God created the universe from himself. Everything in reality is simply a form of God. You and I are made from God by God.
nazra7 Me too! I just said that. I said it differently like everything proceeded out from Him but I agree. So even when they say something can’t come from nothing, I agree. 😄
"Find a christian creed that says that God created everything ex nihilo"
All major brands of christian superstition support the notion of creation ex nihilo. Energy, like speed and distance, is a measure of a physical thing, therefore is physical.
Zadratube Nope, that there is a fail.
Where does Spirit, Thought ,Instinct,Intellect..and most importantly, imagination emanate from?
Throughout history, most inventors, musicians, artists, writers ..the list is long.....received their gifts, through channelling, it came through them in dreams, visions and like Mozart flowed ....
We should really understand this.
The arrogance
Around min. 49 - asks if discovering an evolution explanation for beliefs would cause us to wish to dispense of a belief. Induction is such a belief - yet no one is willing to dispense of it ... So, why don't we just stop believing in induction (there's no rationally compelling reason to believe it's true).
Who is the pedantic, wordy, likes to hear himself host?
And they can never give a physicalist explanatory model for intentional states and yet insist mind is equal to brain. They then add, but one day science will answer that question. Nobel laureate and neuroscientist John Eccles referred to that as "prommissory materialism." Others call it the "science of the gaps."
How is it possible for someone like Plantinga to have a Ph.D. in philosophy and not understand how discerning truth is so important to survival? There's a fight for survival, and the humans with the best technology will wipe out the competitors. That's why new science is usually weaponized as soon as possible. This is so easy to grasp, so why can't a guy with a Ph.D. in philosophy get it?
The belief that "That shadow moving across my field of vision is NOT a dangerous predator intent on eating me" is probably true most of the time. By contrast, "That shadow moving across my field of vision IS a dangerous predator intent on eating me" is false most of the time. But the second belief, although less likely to be true, is certainly more adaptive in the long run, because it stimulates an adaptive response -- running back to the cave or climbing a tree, just in case. That's why adaptivity, not truth, is the goal of evolution. Evolution knows nothing of human technology -- it's still in the stone age because it moves too slowly to keep up with technological advances. Cockroaches have nearly zero intelligence, and therefore nearly zero knowledge of truth, but they are very adaptive, and they've been around a lot longer than humans have. They'll probably be here after we're gone, too. believersareidiots.blogspot.com/
who's the moderator????
Plantinga is a baller.
If you were born to a world devoid of pain, suffering, and sin. How would you value or even appreciate life? This would be like living in a candy store your whole life until the point of diminishing returns/lack of appreciation/too familiar to the point of disenchantment. It is only through the agency of our very fragility/vulnerability/morality/impurities that we can be judged by God. If God were to have created "perfection", He would then have created a foregone/boring/predictable outcome - that would make us robots/mere machines without choices to appreciate or not-appreciate. And therefore could NOT be judged.
Well that is what philosophy is sir. Everything can be question with critical thinking, but lets forget about that and focus on what you said. I understand your point about significance of negative to appreciate positive, but the question is how much? How much evil, sin, pain and suffering do you expect an all powerful god to make us appreciate the +ve? How do you explain evil like a 3 year old daughter being molested and sexually abused by her own father? How do you explain things like holocaust and hate for different races in general or other horrible things? You get my point. If God is all powerful and all good, God can reduce or balance the degree at which these horrible things happen at a high rate.
Elisha didn't call for the bears, he cursed the children. With equal probability to your accusations, the bears showing up could be merely coincidental, and the curse on the children was probably God's unwillingness to defend them because of their mocking and probably others events not listed.
Also, it doesn't say the extent of the injuries. With equal probability to there being severed limbs, it could also be nothing more than mere scratches. We don't know.
Note: Dr. Platinga did not really answer to the question of evil in “God’s world”. Because he or any other religious person or scholar can’t really answer the question. The right answer us there is no god to stop evil.
It just says God is the creator of all things, it doesn't necessarily mean that he created everything from nothing. It could mean that everything was created from the same substance that he is composed of, just as I theorized. Thank you.
My question is why Western scientist Western educated people following the commandment of church why they are not following the commandment of Bible
What is a solipsist.
well, there's only one of them
Plantinga had fun with it here.
Solipsism comes in multiple forms. One version holds that one's own existence is the only thing that can be known for certain. Not necessarily that one is the only thing that exists.
Just because they support it doesn't mean they require it. So again, please give me any Christian creed that says that God created everything ex nihilo.
What I mean by "physical" is whether or not its made of matter. God and energy are not made of matter thus are not physical in that sense.
God ad energy also supernatural in the sense that supernatural means beyond the limitations of nature just as superhuman means beyond the limitations of human beings.
Check this out though. It doesn't say the children were killed, it only says that they were mauled. And furthermore, it doesn't say God sent those bears to attack them. So, its only your assumptions that says God had done something wrong there.
Also, there are many things in the Bible that is way ahead of its time. The idea that the universe had a beginning, the idea that you should love your enemies, ect. These were not commonplace in those times.
exactly right ! God is so far beyond our understanding, luckily he sent Jesus to simplify things a bit lol
the interviewer comes across as frustratingly inept and overstrained. shame.
I agree. It's nice to run into someone who makes the distinction between a methodological description and an ontological explanation. Atheists just don't seem to get that point. Like me, i would venture to say that for you God isn't merely the god of the gaps but, in Lennox's words, the God of the whole show. He's the God of the things we do understand as well as the things we don't.
Lol. The interviewer loves to hear himself speak.
Jeepers, you guys have an explanation for everything. How about the story of Noah? Id like to hear why killing almost everything was somehow ok
If you create a clay pot and you move that clay pot from your front step inside your house, would that be morally wrong? Why then do you accuse a Creator of moving his creation from one location to another? The people were actually warned through Noah but most of that generation mocked him and lived in their sin. The judgment was actually brought upon themselves. I don't know if you still needed an answer for this but that would probably suffice.
Kirk Lincoln I love your explanation!
Where do you get this idea that killing >99% of life on Earth was ok?? Jews & Christians say that the event occurred and that it was necessary but few of them say that it was ok. Try reading Genesis 6:6 before making such a flippant comment.
@@AnnoyingMoose so it was necessary but wrong?
Why scientist not debating with a religious scholar it means all the scientist are a confused just read Quran and then debate with Muslim scholar you will get a logical scientifical answer inshallah or at least see a RUclips channel Peace TV Dr Zakir Naik and debate with them in front of educated people.
For one thing, the idea of animals being evil is pretty bizarre. I wonder what horrible things the frogs were doing!? This story doesn't bother you because you don't question yahweh's decisions. For you, anything he does is 'good' by default. But this is a moot point since the flood was debunked scientifically. I don't know why you take the bible stories literally. They actually make sense when you don't.
I agree totally, that most of the stories must not be taken literally! That is exactly the problem which athism uses as a "proof" againt Christians!!! Berdyaev Nicolas "The destiny of man" is a very good book on that subject!!!
If the probability that our cognitive faculties is low then the probability that your arguments is correct is low.
Including every argument, including this one.
The point is that given that explaination of origin, Naturalism forces you to adopt the unreasonable position that there no NO chance our faculties, from random variation and natural selection, could be unreliable whatsoever. Therefore, Atheism is unreasonable.
@@Againstfascist What your saying is false, just because it's possible to be wrong doesn't mean every reasonable conclusion we arrive is therefore wrong. This is proven by all the cases we are able to correctly explain event in reality.
Plantinga's argumentation is philosophical nonsense that tries to argue that naturalism is unreasonable by fiat.
@@illithidhunter6177 If your cognitive faculties could be wrong, how could you know what was wrong and what wasn't? You couldn't. Now, you could say that the odds of your cognitive faculties being correct are higher than not, therefore you are reasonable in believing in their validity. But in every way that behavior could relate to the content of belief, under Naturalism, there is a low probability of the content being true. Therefore you would need to be agnostic about pretty much about everything.
That's his point. That's why Naturalism is false.
If to alter the environment of heaven, the Angels may very well gasp for air ( their version), as would we. My point is simply: even God requires a method of himself through which to canvas, convey, and animate ANY type of medium or being. Imagine even the most bizarre dimension or place and I'll imagine its inhabitants feel the same of yours..."familiarity breeds contempt" (aka: disenchantment)
I don't know why such miscommunications exist between us. I never admitted that God's actions are indefensible. In his defense, he has complete power over everything and therefore can make even death a good thing. We cannot.
For example, a CEO of a company has more privileges than an entree employee because the CEO has more power over the company. God is the CEO of the universe, and we are like the entree employees. A CEO has the right to fire his employees. God has the right to take life.
nazra7 We are entrees for God, that's for sure. Babies may be the dessert, who knows?
For a catholic born like me, the idea that science conflicts with religion is just absurd - and historically incorrect.
I must say, though, that I disagree about the political position of Dawkins - he's not a leftist. Stephen Jay Gould was a leftist and he had no problem with religion.
Tons of evidence if you understand what evidence means. What for you would be evidence for God? A bearded wizard in the sky?
Barbarism is pure evil, causing destruction and pain without any good to come of it. Giving the children eternity of peace and happiness for a small moment of pain isn't "barbarism". Besides, its not theists' moral grounds that you should be questioning since its not us doing these thing. Only God is allowed to deliver punishment like that because only he can make it a good thing.
And no amount of intelligible evidence will convince the most hardened atheist. But if you're so into empirical evidence, here's your chance to prove materialism is the authentic worldview. Let me direct you to the Quantum Randi Challenge (for anyone claiming to be able to prove objective realism in quantum mechanics): arxiv. org/abs/1207.5294 To bone up, see Physical Review A (65,033818) 2002 and the more recent
2012 Physics Essays Publication. [DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.2.157] in 2012
And please don't try and tell other people why the believe a particular thing. That sort of assumption is the cause of many problems in the world and leads to many strawman arguments.
nazra7 but you’re also making a statement as to what people should believe. Mainly that they believe that they shouldn’t be telling others a particular thing to believe.
One wonders if that young interviewer speaks in that manner when at Taco Bell...
You're acting as if the source of anything in reality has to be outside reality hence can't be real. Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
i think he was polite but a little cocky.
So because there's a heaven it doesn't matter what harm you do to people since they end up in a good place? That's basically saying morality doesn't matter and anything goes. You don't think god does good things, you think things are by definition good when god does them. Meaning morality based on him is meaningless.
It’s not meaningless. I actually do think God does only morally good things. If He said everyone needed to die in a flood to start over He was right and just in His judgement. He isn’t human. Humans don’t have the right to judge the entire world based on their evil thoughts. We don’t know their thoughts. We didn’t make the place. We don’t have any super long term goals for earth. Like, 6000 years from now I want the earth to look like this and these are the things I’m putting in place so that those humans can do this at this time. No, you were in His Devine plan, from the beginning, as was I. And the way for you and I to happen, were everything that happened before us. We’re in the plan, do we want to be involved in the plan, or do we want to sit on the sidelines and watch?
I've seen those and they are much better. I've been impressed with a lot of Lawrence Kuhn's interviews.
And what is your point? Of course God cannot do the impossible. For example, God cannot make a triangle have four sides. That does not show that God doesn't exist.
Why did you pick the christian god? Doesn't Horus appeal to you?
Because almost everything was evil and corrupted. People ask why God doesn't get rid of the evil in the world. The answer is he did once with the flood, and after that he promised not to flood the world again no matter how evil it became.
There are many explanations to the misconceptions people have about Christianity, but there's not an explanation for everything.
that's all kind of just pulled out of thin air with nothing to back it up besides your feelies. you admit gods actions are indefensible so you're basically rationalizing it to yourself by saying yeah but it doesn't count.
What's worse is when your hubris won't even allow you to admit you're wrong. There's ways to suggest an idea is irrational without calling someone stupid. And your analogy of Santa and god is ridiculous. And not all Christians threaten with hell-some don't even believe in hell or they are universalists. You conflate every person and every theoloogy.
"Why?" Why is something you ask other humans, we do that a lot so we ask why to everything but science deals with "How?". You wouldn't ask a ant why it walked a certain path.
The laws aren't gravity itself, we created those laws to approximate how we observe gravity to work. The laws are obviously physical, they are written and exist in the brains of many people but the laws aren't the phenomenon, just like a map isn't the territory it maps.
en wikipedia org/wiki/Map-territory_relation
The fast negation against atheism for me is this: upon a stage I actually and truly levitate an elephant before the eyes of an atheist. A minute before I ask him to examine my actual and real magic of elephant levitation, I also ask him to pop a most beautiful balloon with a provided pin - he popped the balloon as I requested. 2 Hours later I allowed the atheist to understand how I ACTUALLY and TRULY levitated the elephant. Two beautiful things were removed from his world in 2 hours with 2 pricks. Disenchantment comes from familiarization - look back to your childhood when everything was MAGICAL.
I agree. Or someone who can follow arguments.
turning mud into humans is what wizards do.
At my short stay at NYU I've met and admired some stunningly brilliant minds as my professors.
You can say that it was a Divine Hand that steered me away from any interaction with that religious nut fart fanatic.
lol they dont want there to be evidence therefore there is no evidence lol. I ask them for evidence that they exist and they can't even answer it, its because they accept plausible evidence in that situation but not for God.
Nah I'm not ignoring those things. Yes they seem troubling if you believe that the grave is the end. But in reality, those children basically got a free ride to heaven. At the same time, the message of respect has been delivered to those who are disrespectful.
And so, God basically solved 3 problems with one solution. Now how's that for efficient management? What person can offer better results?
You see, atheists are not theists because they truly do not understand God.
When he goes we all go. LOL
One Person's individual Truth is another Person's Lie..Plantinga isnt telling the truth but neither is Dawkins,both have a different world view,so I find an illogical and petty Plantinga and WLC think they have refuted Dawkins or Carrier or Erhman et al.
I have the right to live in excstacy.
"Why does 1+1=2?"
Because God said so. By the decision of the Almighty, 1+1=2. It could be 5 or 398, but God in his holy wisdom decided for 2, so superstitious people like you would be able to build sound arguments like "1+1=2, therefore, God is not imaginary". Brilliant!
I think you are what's referred to as a cyber bully. No?
And if you can't see the implications of how materialism proven false can tie into incorporeal consciousness and that men are not their bodies, then why are we even having this discussion? And yes, if you want to convince me that your worldview is correct, you will have to prove that materialism is true. You can either do that or waste more time posting this prattle on RUclips. Do that, and you'll defeat nearly every believer and win the Nobel Prize.
Yes it's absurd this nobody tried to question Platinga's knowledge.
Do people really believe Alvin Plantinga is a world-class philosopher?
How can someone listen to this guy and really belive his argument to be anything but just sophistry?
lol
You should tell all the editors at top-rated journals and prestigious publishers to offer retractions to his decades of work. I’m sure you can convince them.
Elisha called for the bears in the name of the lord, and they came. And did you really say 'only' and 'mauled' in the same sentence? O_O Anyway, there are so many examples of gods bloodlust and obsession with killing. Just look at the story of Noah, he drowns almost every living creature.
Plot in the sky with stars "I exist, repent or perish forever" is a good start. It would be piece of cake for an omnipotent being who cares about showing his creation that he exists.
I don't need to prove materialism is true. Materialism can be false and still, you have not an inch of evidence that the Universe was created by an omnipotent being who wants to have a personal relationship with you.
He did. Some of us believed what we saw, the others mocked what everyone saw and said it was imaginary.
atheist think complexity = conscience thought lol. As if a super computer will ever become aware of itself. If matter and energy is all there is we should not be aware of ourselves, we would be nothing more than machines pre programmed to do x y z with no awareness of our choice between x y and z
"Sounds like circular reasoning to me"
Nope. Sounds as simple Set Theory to me. Unless you are prepared to deny necessary mathematical truths, anything that is outside the set of real things can't be real. The christian god, therefore, is delusional by logical necessity.
Lol. You are presupposing mathematical truths to prove that truth exists from Naturalism in an absolute sense. That's called circular reasoning.
Here is you:
1.) Mathematical truth exists.
2.) Naturalism accounts for all cognitive functions.
3.) Therefore truth exists due to Naturalism.
Let's do this another way:
1.) God created everything.
2.) God accounts for all cognitive functions.
3.) We have cognitive functions, therefore God exists.
You have to start in a place that doesn't assume the conclusion.
I'm afraid you did the same.
Yes, you're assuming that God has to be outside reality to create everything that is in reality. Thus Circular reasoning. Sorry but setting up your own idea of God, then disproving that is completely pointless. Its also called a strawman fallacy.
Now, are you going to continue with your fallacious nonsense or are you going to admit that you don't know much at all of what you're speaking of? Because that is quite obvious to everyone else here.
If God created the universe from nothing, then it is possible for something to com from nothing, and you should stop saying that such event is not possible. The next thing you need to show is why you need a god for the event to happen. If you think it is impossible for something to come from nothing, the honest conclusion is that the universe don't come from nothing, so a god who create ex nihilo does not exist by logical necessity and the christian god is falsified.
How intellectually lazy to think that you've some how disproven God because I've offered an alternative theory? Find a christian creed that says that God created everything ex nihilo, otherwise, I will continue to laugh at your lack of knowledge about the Christian God.
God is not physical in the same way that energy is not physical. Yet energy is used to create matter. God is also said to create matter. See the resemblance?
Why talk about evolution? Plantinga should be talking about the conflict between a round earth and the bible. It's obvious many of the authors from the old and new testament and the apocrypha were flat earthers(there are many references I could give). And yet not a single one of the authors can be shown to believe in a round earth.
Correct, this is a fair question and applies to other cosmological aspects such as a solid dome keeping out a primordial chaos ocean upon which the living stars move as well. The biblical authors all believed in a flat earth consistent with the cosmology of all the ANE cultures. This is addressed by OT theologians such as John Walton, Michael Heiser, and Sandra Richter among a myriad of others. It comes down to whether God would have interest in correcting scientific worldview or whether he would be solely interested in communicating a message via preexistent worldview. Essentially their assertion is that it's a bit like if I go to America and make a Seinfeld reference in conversation to illustrate the value of relationships: I'm utilizing the existing cultural milieu, a fiction significant to society, to communicate something valuable. The biblical authors, in particular, like to adopt other materials to develop polemics against other ANE religions and illustrate attributes of Yahweh. Augustine argued a similar position in the 4th century as well so this is viewed as an orthodox Christian position. Hope that helps.
Isaac Johnson You have no idea how satisfying it is to finally find someone who understands what written in there. So much ducking and dodging, but finally someone here who get's it.
And the answer to those theologians' question is of course, no. A good god would not lie to his creations about brute scientific facts like that to make things more understandable to them.
In fact, the gospels and prophetic books are full of cases where disciples or prophets do not initially understand some weird symbol or story and it has to be painstakingly explained to them by Jesus or an angel or what have you.
Your welcome, and I understand, unfortunately there are a great many seminarians, ministers, apologists, and laity who can be a tad ignorant to ancient context. It doesn't help that there are odd ducks out there like the Answers in Genesis folks spreading blatantly inaccurate and unorthodox information that flies in the face of centuries of sound scholarship.
Prophecy and apocalyptic literature are interesting genres that have their own literary quirks (there really aren't modern genre equivalents, so they are truly alien to the modern reader). There are also issues regarding type and antitype and the way NT writers adopt OT works to describe Christ as antitype which isn't always prophetic the way a 21st-century person would describe the prophetic. The modern North American view of the prophetic as future telling would be exceedingly rare in the ANE as most would have considered prophecy the revelation of present and at times past divine truth. There is some which is strictly future telling, but it is a minuscule amount. Kaiser and Silva do a great job on breaking down how little material could be considered proper future telling in the OT; that being said there are some genuine instances of future telling that is not typological that are applied as Christological future telling worth considering as possible.
I appreciate your stance, and would have held it myself at one point, but to some extent I would challenge the notion that not revealing science when it is inconsequential to message necessitates a lie. We don't apply this to mothers with their children for example because we understand the prioritization of a particular message as ethical given children won't comprehend all the scientific fact anyhow. Pragmatically, there is also the issue that no ancient person would consider and spread a message that coincides with scientific features that no one yet believed nor could anyone verify at the time. Hypothetically, why introduce an insignificant cognitive barrier if one wanted to communicate a profound truth? Furthermore, there is a bit of a Western modernist worldview bias at play in emphasizing scientific accuracy in communication that is not universal to all cultures at all times that we should at the very least step back from and evaluate the validity of. We may find that, indeed adopting cultural perspectives that are scientifically inaccurate to couch a point universally constitutes a lie, at which point you are entirely correct and the biblical accounts should be invalidated, or we may end up with a slightly different conception of communication where prioritization of salient point via preexisting belief is valid and there may yet be the possibility of truth within the biblical texts (this would not of course prove the existence of God, but would continue the possibility of the Christian God). ;-)
According to the dictionary, a lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. And to deceive is to cause someone to believe something that is not true or invalid.
And a lie by omission would be one thing, if he just never mentioned the roundness of the earth. But to actively fabricate imagery and create false visions and inspire people to write things that actively reaffirm flat earth belief, even when the Romans already knew the earth was round; that's simply immoral.
And God would know how his books would be used throughout history to validly deny accurate science. There's just no excuse for that kind of negligence.
And if we know God lies about science, that is, if he's dishonest about his own creation and humans' place in it, then why stop there? He might be dishonest about his own character and his own plans too. And this is actually affirmed by the difference between Old Testament God and New Testament God.
I don't know, I just don't see a single excuse for God on this one; lying about his creation.
A couple of observations: I'd be cautious not to adopt the fundamentalist-literalist view of divine inspiration. A fundamentalist-literalist believes that the human authors of divine texts are kind of like a holy typewriter and that a divine entity is choosing every letter on a scroll, it's a completely untenable position that no serious theologian holds. Unfortunately, you are going to run into a fair number of people that do hold that position, untenable as it is, but most theologians disagree with fundamentalist-literalism and would hold that a divine message is transmitted to a human author and that the human author has a fair amount of freedom in couching that message. You could still say that God allowed them to perpetuate their flawed scientific worldview, and that's a valid criticism, but it does leave it not quite so cut and dry.
There is still a little bit of Western 21st century bias in applying that definition of a lie, as not all cultures at all times would agree in applying it to utilizing myth to make a point. However, if you are sure that all communication requires accurate scientific worldview to be expressed in order to be true, and moreover that a deity would be required to do so, then you've come to a fair and reasonable conclusion. I'd still ruminate on it a bit because as the late Hiebert points out, recognizing worldview biases that have been transmitted to us can be incredibly difficult and not all of our perspectives that we perceive as absolutes are by necessity absolutes. That may not change perspectives on the possibility of divine communication, you may step back for a week or two and still say "yep, this is accurate and universal," but it is an interesting exercise nonetheless to step back and evaluate how much our own milieu, for better or for worse, actually influences the way we fundamentally perceive the world and to what extent that has influenced us.
wizards you mean evilutionists?
A meter is a name designator given to a unit of measurement. Its distance was fixed based upon the propagation of light in a vacuum over a unit of time. What is your point?
So, you're simply defining God to be imaginary and letting that be the end of it? So, in effect you are dodging my point by making a definition that conveniently confirms your hypothesis about God. Nice. Well, then, I declare that you are imaginary and thus not worth the trouble of taking seriously.
oh yes the science of the gaps, just give the problem to the future lol. Gotta love it !
My point is that I can predict how many gallons (another arbitrary unit) of ink I need to cover a wall using the meter. Why you don't think the meter is god given or why you don't claim it is some mysterious, supernatural truth about reality?
I'm not defining god as imaginary. God is an imaginary being. If he isn't, the burden of proof to show otherwise is on you.
Zadratube If He is imaginary, I leave it to you to prove He is.