Alvin Plantinga on Richard Dawkins | Veritas at NYU
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 07. 2018
- World-class philosopher Alvin Plantinga talks Science & Faith at a Veritas Forum at NYU, 2013.
Full Forum available here: • God = ? | NYU Question...
SUBSCRIBE: czcams.com/users/subscription_...
INSTAGRAM: / veritasforum
Over the past two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more! - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Iʼve always been amazed with the way Dr. Alvin Plantinga dissects and expounds upon certain topics, and this one is no exception. The manner he engaged the reasoning of the Dr. Richard Dawkins exposed the uncogent reasoning of the said scientist regarding the process of evolution and nature as a whole. While I do not hate Dr. Dawkins at all, I think he is trying hard to really sweep the concept of theism under the rug in light of the metaphysical and physical conversations.
This has been greatly helpful in my understanding of the arguments made by the now basically defunct 'New Atheism' movement. It has had its heyday; but eversince Dr. Alvin Plantinga and Dr. John Lennox stopped Dr. Daniel Dennett and Dr. Richard Dawkins dead in their tracks for intellectual dishonesty regarding the arguments against theism, it has died down a great deal for the past several years.
Now, atheism still undeniably exists. But with people like Dr. Plantinga standing at the gates to help defend the rational reasoning for Theism, particularly the Christian faith, it will continuously move forward in making a case for the existence of God and His interactions with creation as a whole.
Thank you all so much here in The Veritas Forum for uploading this. Please, never stop uploading these kinds of content for us Christians to have a library of learning resources to share alongside the main message of the Christian Gospel.
God bless everyone!
Now show us evidence for your imaginary god being real.
How can a spaceless,Infinite,immaterial and Infinite God affect anything finite..Your God appears no different from the fabric or reality
czcams.com/video/ew_cNONhhKI/video.html
Plantinga is wrong:
czcams.com/video/EWE3cQmFYBI/video.html
Dawkins is an embarrassment but as it the case with most of these pop philosophers, if you give them enough rope. There is a rich of seam of anti intellectualism running right throughout the evangelical atheist lobby and few are better than Plantinga at exposing it.
Plantinga projected a strawman, lol, you guys are hopeless
Alvin looks like Abraham Lincoln no?
Yeah he kind of does.
When he lower his voice, it sounds epic.
Yeah his voice kind of put you to sleep because of how slow and cathartic it is.
The title of the video should be how to dismantle atheism in 30 seconds 😂😂😂
Hahahaha! Plantinga projected a strawman but glad it helped you to reaffirm your beliefs!
@@anteodedi8937 How? What elements were distorted in your opinion?
Yep.💎👍🤙
I want Alvin to read me a story every night to go to sleep
Yeah he does kind of put you to sleep. Not because he’s boring or because what he says isn’t interesting, just because of how slow and cathartic his tone in the way he talks is.
Yes! His voice is so powerful yet calming
Great logic, sir. If it's not proven to be impossible it must be true. Dawkins is no expert on philosophy.
I haven't read Dawkins' book but I assume the premise should rather be:
We have very good evidence for the fact that all of life has come to be by way of unguided processes. It's not only that there is no evidence that it has happened by any other process but there is strong positive evidence for the fact that that is the way it's happened.
Thus, except if we assume a weird kind of overdetermination of how life came to be, that is the way it has happened. Assuming another explanation for the existence of life, if you have very good positive evidence for the fact that it has happened by natural, unguided evolution, seems a bit strange.
What strong or very good evidence shows that this process has been unguided rather than guided?
@@h.b.1311 the creation of life is impossible with atheism. Look up james tour. he exposes how dumb some of these theories are like spontaneous generation.
@@h.b.1311 The evidence and philosophical reflection about it points towards guided more plausible that unguided, in fact.
By science alone, it is stupid to consider that evolution can undermine any intellectual position but naturalism, which is done eventually.
@@davidlara993where did the guidance begin and where does it end? Is an eye constructed which leads to the survival of a species. And from there it’ll adapt and change according to its surroundings/environment?. Is every little change guided? Like what’s going on here? And what’s the point of guided evolution of a clown fish or a bush spider in dungog rainforest?
Doesn’t this guy argue that if it is possible that a maximally great being exists in some world that we can conclude that this being does in fact exist in all worlds? Yet he attacks Dawkins’ conclusion that evolution produced life on earth? He thinks it’s a step too far to say that evolution hasn’t been disproven and it’s possibly true so it is in fact most likely true. It’s his own argument for the existence of god, the only difference being evolution depends on scientific evidence and observations while his conclusion came from “if I can imagine a god than a god must exist.” How can anyone take Plantinga seriously?
craaazy straw man.
Dawkins sold himself out and became a hack a long time ago. He used to be a decent researcher with some interesting philosophical ideas, but then he realized how much money and fame he could make by arguing against very narrow and sometimes strawman versions of some religious groups.
No one doing any kind of serious, cutting edge scientific research in any field quotes Richard Dawkins. He hasn’t done any research in his field in probably 40 years.
Dawkins’, like I said, had some interesting ideas. But his greatest downfall is his lack of philosophical training and his lack of knowledge about the views he criticizes. He chooses to argue against very radical or childish caricatures of the people he claims he’s disagreeing with. And what makes it even worse is that his logic is absolutely twisted. He’s out behind his depths talking about the things he’s talking about.
you maybe need to do some research on that , bud. Just saying!
Randomness/determinism is a false dichotomy.
what's the third option?
Yea, what are the other options? Saying something does not make it true. Offer your options.
@@nate8396 So you needed to have sight to accept that Black/white is a false dichotomy. It is simple logic basically.
Besides, there is what seems did not fall entirely within the scope of two, which is consciousness. The burden of the proof should be on the other side because dichotomies are false organically.
@@truebomba Lame. Your saying that dichotomies are organically false is also a claim. So, ironically, the burden of proof is upon you to prove it. So, do so.
@@nate8396 Lame!? I am afraid you have never learned logic. This is a basic logic statement unless your universe of potentiality is inherently binary.
Negation of black is nonblack (not white). As for negation of determinism, is nondeterminism (not random, except if you define random as nondeterminism which is not the usual mathematical mainstream today's usage). It is either ill-defined semantics or binary thinking that leads to these delusional dichotomies. Nothing to prove here.
In short, the form of Richard Dawkins's argument in The Blind Watchmaker is that it is possible that unguided naturalistic evolution is true (or unguided naturalistic evolution is not impossible), therefore naturalistic evolution is true. 🙃
Isn’t positing a God in biological processes called god of the gaps? Where did this guided process begin and where does it end? Is it currently happening? Is there evidence? Was it a deterministic process whereas constructing an eye will lead to the survival of this species? Will nature allow it to now adjust to the conditions of its environment and help it survive?
You don't have to be a theist(although it will lead you there) to recognize not only the complexity of life and the systems that make it up but also the origin required for life cannot be chance. The more science learns, the more true this becomes
Anyone who has actually worked in manufacturing knows that the best design is a simple design. Complexity is the opposite of design. The human body is a mess. Our eyes, wisdom teeth, skin, appendix, tailbone, etc., make no sense from a design standpoint. God doesn't flunk because we are alive, but he definitely did no better than a grade of D minus.
@@markb3786 ask logic circuit designer about how absurd your nonsense is
I once heard one of the ID scientists say that life is driven by information. I didnʼt understand it then. But once you come to see it (as i did eventually), and realize the intricacy and multi-level nature of that information, plus the fact that it drives the living organism to maintain its integrity _against_ the forces of inanimate nature, then you realize that physics & chemistry could never produce that information, and thus life could never arise by the action of inanimate forces.
Excellent point. Not only would the atheist have to prove how life came into being from chance, but then have to show how it was able to protect this initial life from decay before it could replicate itself.@@Leslie_Crich
Dawkins says these laws move in a special way. Underscore the word "special," because it's a Freudian slip that acknowledges God.
Great catch
No it isn't
No, He means chemical laws.
Plantinga is wrong:
czcams.com/video/EWE3cQmFYBI/video.html
@@rstevewarmorycom that exist with no lawgiver......
I don't know much about logics, but I know that this is called appeal to probability (this is a logical fallacy).
No es una falacia, si una cosa puede ser o no ser solo dependiendo de una probabilidad y no de un absurdo lógico, es más plausible tomar por verdadero aquello más probable, es lo que hacen los historiadores
Well I played the life of God. My question is "and did God create the emotions?"
This is my spiritual story
A naïve soft hearted man who lived in a wealthy city and spent all his time helping people distanced himself to a mountainous land. On the way there he kept helping people. He then fell ill and these thoughts came to him: what will I do afterwards? I will go to the top of the mountain and let the vultures eat me; I want no riches of this world; I am coming to help my father; and I can work. He then goes back to the wealthy city and miraculously finds work. He then understands the vultures are the people he attracted and he did not know he was attracting because he was naïve; he wants no riches of this world because he has the virtues of this world; he helps his father die with out suffering in his old age, and he works.
I am 65 now. The spiritual story goes up to the age of 47. So up to 47 I call my person the spiritual Jesús, and now I call myself the earthly Jesús. When I was 47, I was as naive as a 5 year old, even though I had been a university lecturer at the University of Westminster in London for nearly 20 years. So when I was the spiritual Jesús in the early 1990s, I was with a two people, and one of them who was doing research in genes mentioned that he believed that God existed because the probability of life appearing spontaneously was too small, the spiritual Jesús asked the question "And did God create the emotions?" @@StanJenkinss
Theist here. Was listening to AVs response, but it sounds like he is refuting the Ontological Proof for Gods Existence. Can anyone help me understand this?
He is. In fact in his God and Other Minds, he claimed that all prominent theistic (ontological, cosmological, teleological) and atheistic (problem of evil, free will) arguments fail to establish their claims.
@@joshuaocon6773 Yes, that's the objection Kant made somewhere, I think. That's why I much rather discussing the aristotelian-thomist argument.
No, he is not refuting the ontological argument. The ontological argument works bcus it is dealing with a maximally great being. So, without going into detail, the ontological argument says that if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then he must exist. But this here is simply dealing with unguided evolution. So it being *possible* that life could come to be by unguided evolution, does not logically conclude that it did.
He’s responding to the cosmological argument.
@@stevew6251"If it is possible that a maximally great being exist then he must exist" how is that any difference from what Dawkins imply.
So, according to Dawkins, being blind equals having no purpose, or a minds eye... so it shouldn't be a blind watchmaker, but a blind watchmaker with amnesia and mentally disabled, which is even more spectacular. Moreover, how can the 'blind' and 'purposeless' laws of nature create something by accident, that DOES have purpose and direction properties? this just makes no sense.
It isn't "accident" except figuratively, it's chemical law.
@@rstevewarmorycom Which is even more nonsensical as the law itself is not chemical. Learn what "law" is
@@Robobotic
Yeah, I'm a physicist, you can go fuck right off.
@@rstevewarmorycom That means nothing.
@@Robobotic
YOU mean nothing.
Dawkins' point is that you don't need to ASSUME super-natural intervention to explain evolution.
That doesn't disprove super-natural intervention, but that's not the point. The point is why assert super-natural intervention when it isn't needed?
Its like asserting super-natural intervention as the reason that the rain falls.
The problem is Plantiga supports the cosmological argument, which does the same thing for theism.
thats what iv always taught , its possible therefore its true , is just a so rediculous argument
luke rockhold , i chocked out bisping religion is ridiculous
So, Dawkins argues from ignorance or possibility? An analogous argument could go: "It's possible that God made the world. Therefor, God _did_ make the universe." Dawkins is a bad thinker.
He should've never left the biology field. As Edward Feser said in "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New-Atheism", there's a famous book called 'Philosophy for Dummies', they should make a less complex version titled 'Philosophy for Dawkins'
Plantinga's ontological argument actually does make a similar argument to that example by showing that if it is possible God exists, he must exist.
Dawkins argues from the tons of evidence at university labs and libraries, and the simple fact that no god has ever been seen by anyone reputable.
The God argument is also an argument from ignorance..there is no actual evidence for supernatural Gods but Metaphysical Apologetics.
Shouting God loudly doesn't make it true..thats the basic Fallacy of Theism
@@duqueadriano0081
Plantinga is a silly old Fool..deeply wrong and self deluded
η αληθεια
@Gabe Pearson
Textual critics note that "christ" was not a term in use by rabbinical writers at the time of Josephus writing the Antiquities, and as to James, they think a scribe entered that in the margin notes, as soon as he saw the name James, trying to be helpful, when that James was another James, son of a temple priest. Later it was written back in thinking it was an accidental omission. The "brother of the lord" was the word adelphos, in Greek, which isn't brother, but spiritual brother. More like Paul when he said all who have seen him in visions are brothers of the lord. The "luke" writer never named himself. He even said his gospel was NOT witnessed, but merely reported by him as to what he had learned. And yes, Matthew was also anonymous, didn't self-identify, as was John, which was apparently written by a committee, according to textual critics. And no, Paul does NOT, in the 7 of 13 epistles attributed to him, rather than the 6 which were forged in his name, NEVER mentions disciples, teachings, miracles, ministry, jesus' origin, or any of the details in the Mark book. What has been said remarkable is that he can keep talking and talking about his archangel jesus without actually telling us anything about him, other than he was crucified in heaven by satan and his demons, and he had a "lord's supper" the night before, though not mentioning any disciples being there. Only Paul "dreamt up" jesus, and he never met him in life nor said he did. The "Mark" story was a story, written to promote a re-culting of Judaism into a worship of god in a spirit, and from a book, rather than a god in a sacrifice cult in a temple. The beginning of John, en arke een o logos kai o logos een pros ton theon, was actually a rip off from Philo of Alexandria, who came up with the "logos" mythos. This actually came out of Egyptian mysticism. A lot of the jesus imagery is borrowed from the Osiris cult. It was all very Greco-Egyptian. And like the Egyptians, they promoted one mythos for commoners, and another spiritual mythos for the elite. One a phony life on earth, and the other in heaven. You HAVE to remember to understand this stuff, that at that time, fact and fiction about complex issues were not clearly distinguished in the human mind of many. Just as they aren't among Trump voters today.
Plantinga is wrong:
czcams.com/video/EWE3cQmFYBI/video.html
Alvin: Fact is, that Dawkins makes stupid argument in his book.
Colin Dowson: AAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! (posts 100500 irrelevant comments in one gallop, puts his ass on fire)
Theo Dor
Plantinga has been refuted many times..he speaks Pseudoscientific twaddle..nor does he check his sources!
Gospel Fictions www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B002I61F3A/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_4RHMEb9MHCV7J
The Bible Against Itself Why the Bible Seems to Contradict Itself www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0965504751/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_t5HMEbRHN58CG
Who Wrote the Gospels? www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0965504727/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_P6HMEb8MSRCC8
The Bible: Scientific fact vs. blind Faith ( For Agnostics, Non-Theists, and those with an open Mind ) www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07STPDRP7/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_18HMEbNPQBW8P
No, you're merely ignorant and uneducated.
@@rstevewarmorycom
Plantinga is wrong:
czcams.com/video/EWE3cQmFYBI/video.html
@@rstevewarmorycom
Gods dont exist..men write and forge Book ok
@@rationalsceptic7634
I don't follow links sent me by morons.
All I can say is Dawkins and others that believe the same when on their death beds want to hope they're right , I know I'll be praying but of course that won't be anything that they would do . In the end we will all know the Truth one day!
Cool, an implied threat. Typical. What we will do is spend our days living our lives instead of throwing them away to be a slave to an immoral and pathetic god.
After death consciousness remains as recent findings say. There's a scientific mechanism known as ORCH-OR theory that allows existence of soul after death passed on as quantum information. The recent finding of undecohered quantum vibrations in microtubules of neurons give support to the theory.
@@mastercloud977 It's better to be a slave to God than say Stalin, Pol or Mao.
@@RenormalizedAdvait I am not a slave to any of those. But actually it would be better to be a slave to a human than to a god. Because at least the human you can escape from
@@RenormalizedAdvait First, that's only a hypothesis so nice try. Second the idea of a soul in science is basically a dead concept at this point. Based on everything we know and understand about the brain and body and self, there is nothing meaningful that survives death. Sorry to burst your bubble.
05:55 "It's possible that it happened therefore it did happen" - if that's what you got from Dawkins' book then you didn't understand it, Alvin! Shame on you!
I am an atheist/agnostic. However, Richard Dawkins is a narcissistic hypocrite and I refuse to support him, and I'd rather support someone defending what they believe as opposed to attacking the faiths of others. Also my guy Alvin just looks happy with his life unlike another guy so there's that.
What do you think about Islam? I'm just asking out of curiosity.
@@Kll5406_ In what sense? I think any religion or faith taken too far can become a bad thing and I know Muslims who are (shock horror) completely normal people.
@@Obvious-Enigma Thanks.I mean, they know some things wrong in America, that's why I asked.
@@Kll5406_ Sorry I'm not 100% sure I follow, I'm from the UK so I don't immediately think of America. Would you mind clarifying?
@@Obvious-Enigma I didn't know you were British. But I think you may misunderstand some events in Turkey and the Middle East in general, or they may be misinterpreted to you. For example (this is very common, especially in America), mixing Turks and Arabs together. I have no hostility towards Arabs, but we are two different races. You probably know this, but Even in Europe, there are people who do not know this. In addition, I recommend you to read the Quran. Your perspective will definitely change. (Maybe you have read it, I don't know)Thanks.
Dawkins does biology for children. He doesn't do philosophy. I don't think he even debates evolutionism any more, I think it's finally sunk home that he's been flogging the dead horse for the most part of his life. Luckily he's got away with it so far, but the demise came when his evo mate Craig Venter told him Darwins tree of life was dead. On camera in front of an audience. Dawkins visibly stunned, he attempted to walk the statement back, but Venter explained his statement, stopping short of saying evolution was a total scam, probably to save Dawkins and the other panellists ,(all evos), from having fainting fits.
You are witnessing the extinction of another species. Evolutionists.
Cryogenic Vortex ....in your dreams. Actual quote from Venter here .....
czcams.com/video/MXrYhINutuI/video.html
Watch and weep.
Are you saying that people who teach children cant be intelligent? Evolution is a fact, it cant go extinct. Either you don't understand the issue or you're simply being a troll.
@ sorry i think you're confused. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory that explains evolution.
Hm i wonder who'd you'd go to when you're diagnosed with cancer. A doctor or a philosopher?
Tony Mak you make euthanasia of religous people look good.
So if you fly a Plane,do you trust the Bible or Science?
I think Miracles and Resurrections are legitimate Scientific questions about Biology,Chemistry and Physics otherwise,we are living in a world of untestable,metaphysical magical thinking?
Dude... you're really taking over this comment section
The problem with that anti-intellectual fallacious and wrong dilema, is that you need to strawman the metaphysical foundation of epistemology to make some sense of your point, which is stupid and self-refutes.
@@davidlara993
Metaphysical Apologetics actualise nothing...why believe in the supernatural when there is no evidence for it?
czcams.com/video/9_SHekmKtWI/video.html
czcams.com/video/lpkYIk1qqaE/video.html
czcams.com/video/ew_cNONhhKI/video.html
God has no explicatory Power:
czcams.com/video/1iMmvu9eMrg/video.html
@@rationalsceptic7634 I will always wonder how you, after stupidly showing your ignorance once and again, after deleting comments, after your incapacity to define evidence, after being exposed for your pathetic attempts to discredit professional academics from a point of view of your absolute ignorance, are still so arrogant to call yourself "rational".
I told you once and I repeat that I mantain conversations with people whose IQ is beyond 80. Your silence at other comments when I exposed your ignorance at very basic notions (don´t worry, I won´t spend any more time with you doing so) and your deleted comments did also show how anti-intellectually dishonest were you. So, please, as a question of avoiding further problems, stop quoting me based on your pathetic arrogance fruit of insulting ignorance.
Can you understand this although your mental capacities are not precisely brilliant?
@@davidlara993
danielmiessler.com/blog/the-bible-is-fiction-a-collection-of-evidence/
czcams.com/video/B1YiDN8MT9w/video.html
czcams.com/video/B1YiDN8MT9w/video.html
czcams.com/video/Kor_L12bBB0/video.html
czcams.com/video/EmK4EUkUWf4/video.html
czcams.com/video/1iMmvu9eMrg/video.html
czcams.com/video/ew_cNONhhKI/video.html
Plantinga completely misses the point of Dawkin's explanation.
A scientific theory;
encompasses current evidence,
can make testable predictions, which have been validated,
must necessarily be modified or abandoned if new evidence makes it untenable, i.e. A theory is always "so far so good".
Plantinga's statement that evolution must be true because it hasn't been proven false, leaves out the meat.
I cannot fathom how Plantinga, a man so intelligent, can pull such blind sighted wilfully misunderstood strawman of an argument. Truly disappointing.
World-class philosopher Alvin Plantinga??? World-class nutcase, I'd say!
Wow you really got him. That was a deep point you made! I'm now an atheist
@@josephirvin56 lol
Lmao you just state "Religion Bad" without any argument whatsoever. That's not a good look for athiests who claim to be so much 'smarter'
Omg. After reading what you say, I believe you!!
@@nate8396 All these so-called world class philosophers need to do is provide objective empirical evidence for their "God"! And not beat around the bush as they invariably do!
lol on the Obama analogy
Gods bless! ( Zeus, Allah, Jupiter, Anu, Shangdi, Horus etc.)
only Jesus the rest are demons
@@lolsing2205 bro allah is how arab christians pray to jesus
"We Scientists must realise that Religions are just a jumble of false assertions not grounded in reality,God is just a product of the human imagination"
Paul Dirac,FRS,Nobel Laureates...one the finest Scientists of the last 200 years
Colin Dowson you again.
Argument from authority. qed
Colin Dowson “Lel, scientists said so, true lel”
It’s not very scientific to quote a claim and not produce any evidence.
Colin Dowson Dirac did not even have natural attraction to women. He was almost autistic. He would always be confused as to why Heisenberg (pocket greater than Dirac, since you argue from authority)believed in a deity.
Plantinga either knows he is presenting a strawman or he does not; he is either disingenuous or incompetent.
He actually read the argument from a prominent atheist. It came directly from the horses mouth bro...
@@brianstanton8296 The "main argument" at the end is not a quote from Dawkins (or any scientist, for that matter). It is a misrepresentation of the position, courtesy of Plantinga.
The author of the Blind watchmaker either knows he is presenting a strawman or is unaware of it, he is either disingenuous or ignorant.
@@junacebedo888 What strawman are you referring to?
@@jerklecirque138 Blind watchmaker
The God Delusion; a charming book. Even better to hear him read it.
Only a person with severe mental problems would consider that book something respectable from intellectual point of view.
@@davidlara993 I am wondering if it is the premise of naturalism in the book that you find so objectionable? Is to be an atheist to have severe mental problems? What book would you suggest to set me on the path of unmuddling my mind, if I am not too far gone already?
@@arthurwieczorek4894 No. I find very objectable that a person considers it a good idea to make a whole book on a topic of philosophy, with such an arrogance, while having not the slightest idea of what he is talking about. Naturalism treated on that book is not even the worst point he makes, although he considers it under the childish fallacy of "methodology equals worldview".
The only explanation is an incompetent attempt to deceive people (like atheist community now try to excuse that awful writing) or a serious mental problem of self proud, when asking a companion of his university on topics like theism (he does not even define properly what he is supposed to criticize) tomism (that part, specifically, is insulting) or maths (yeah, the classification he tries to make on epistemology, considering he knows anything about that field, is completely wrong from a probabilistic point, too) would have been a brilliant idea in order to try not to make such a ridicule and lost all credibility for academy in general (including, of course, atheistic one)
So I recommend you to follow logics and good philosophical arguments, not such a bad attempt of propaganda with not even a good title according to the content of the book.
I disagree I think it’s a tragically terrible book, and it’s just intellectually dishonest, it has been created by both atheist and Christian philosophers over the years, I recommend reading Michael Ruse’s article in response to the God delusion. He says if you claim the universe head designer it’s only fair for me to ask who designer designer, and he claims that the cosmological argument says everything had a cause, therefore God must’ve had a cause, when that’s not the argument everything that began to exist, that’s literally why it says everything that began to exist, and he says that Aquinas proclaiming that God is the cause is a completely unfounded and logical leap, he clearly didn’t read Aquinas at all. The biggest problem is he just doesn’t care, he doesn’t care about the topic. If you became an atheist because of the God delusion, I don’t mean to be rude but wow that says a lot.
Right it was such a sensation when it was release and when you explore it...that's it? Weak anti religious arguments with no idea how the universe, life, or the complex things that make up life actually happened(i.e. natural selection cannot create an eye)
This video is ridiculous! Imagine working this hard to demonstrate the existence of something that absolutely doesn't want you to know it exists, but has the power to allow everyone to believe.
Just show evidence of God and be done with it. Funny how god could reveal himself today instead of 2,000 years ago when we had ZERO ways to confirm it. Seems god doesn’t want us to know for sure.
Just show the evidence.
Did you even watch a second of the video or are you just copy pasting this comment everywhere
@LEEK I don’t believe because no one has shown me evidence.
“This video is ridiculous”
Now that’s ironic coming from a relativist, that is a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist!!
(Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism):
“The belief that there was “nothing”, and nothing didn’t really mean nothing as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing much happened to nothing except nothing and then nothing suddenly magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything suddenly magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But ultimately it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is ultimately meaningless.” (Atheism)
And they mock other peoples beliefs!!
Yeah perfectly “sane” and makes perfect sense!! About as much sense as your ironic truth claims and proselytising about a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that inevitably leads to epistemological nihilism and fatalism.
The fact is that the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism/objective morality isn’t even an argument from ignorance it’s just a logical observation of the impossibility and absurdity of the contrary!! It’s just a properly basic belief lol. In contrast a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is nothing more than a culture of death and meaninglessness if you think about it rationally!!
Atheism basically says birth is an accident, life is ultimately meaningless and absurd and death simply ends the absurdity and illusion that birth began!! Your world view, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Sorry but stop using ignorance and stop hiding behind the cloak of “scientific authority” to promote your nihilistic, materialistic, fatalistic faith!!
The fact is that the “natural sciences” can’t “prove” anything as they are provisional and can only infer. It’s a constantly changing landscape regarding what (is) not what (ought) to be!! The “natural sciences” do not make any capital T truth claims regarding values that is metaphysics, ethics, meaning and purpose etc. The fact is that it’s common knowledge in modal logic and analytical philosophy that …
“You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume)
Furthermore, according to the (National Academy of Science)…
"Whether there is a purpose to the universe or a purpose for human existence are not questions for science." (National Academy of Science).
Furthermore, the academy also points out that the conflict myth between science and faith is exactly that, a myth and a false dichotomy: According to the National academy for science…
"Consequently, many people including many scientists, hold strong religious beliefs and simultaneously accept the occurrence of evolution." (National Academy of Science).
Sorry but it’s common knowledge that the “natural sciences” are fundamentally agnostic when it comes to ontological claims regarding value, metaphysics and in particular the qualities of experience. Because “truth” with a capital T is the role of metaphysics, transcendental categories, modal logic and analytical philosophy. So any appeals to “proof” from the “natural sciences” in matters of metaphysics is just a logical fallacy commonly known in analytical philosophy and modal logic as (Scientism)
(Scientism): “An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of “natural science” applied to all areas of investigation as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities” (Merriam Webster Library definition).
Evidence to the contrary please not logical fallacies!! I’ll wait!!
Evolution is as factual as Relativity...if Relativity challenged Theism,Theists would be bashing Einstein...that sums up their position.. psychological need not facts
Craig Kelly
In that case...all Science is bogus...so how do you explain QM being accurate to 1 part in a Trillion....you clearly don't understand Science...Science isnt Absolute Truth or Religion...it is progressive,probable and provisional but it is also moving towards what works,explains and describes... empirical facts.. Evolution works...end of story...please engage with the evidence and facts
Of course Macroevolution is observed...hence we can predict...we can't observe the Big Bang or Atoms...but we have a working model that explains it...Science moves painstakingly to get things right..stop second guessing Nature and learn
Why Evolution is True (Oxford Landmark Science) www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0199230854/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_EmBsCbZBJ6RZ7
Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0143108263/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_knBsCb4CA15QD
Evolution is not factual at all. Change over time, yes
The blind watchmaker thesis, NO
Even Richard Dawkins say that biology turn in to computer science. Nobody believes that from inorganic matter could arise computer code, language.
Colin Dowson love how you bring up QM which we find arguably the strongest evidence for theism
Colin Dowson by the way science doesn’t say anything scientists do and majority of them believe in a higher power.
Colin Dowson www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Total strawman by Plantinga. Clearly doesnt understand the argument
The god Platinga is talking about is not the bible god, who is a mere 4,000 years old. He is talking about his god so vaguely and generically he actually offers no coherent definition. That is the thing about "God" it means whatever each person thinks it does.
Lucas Smith how would you reform Dawkins' argument?
@Joshua McGillivray cute
And who is telling that, some nutters who never saw more education beyond sophomore?
@ Irrational numbers don't have a coherent definition but that doesn't make it non-existent not it can be given to fanciful interpretation. Two basic definitions of God emerge from ancient traditions independent of 2000 years old Bible, 1. God is conscious. 2. God is the cause of this universe. Two things can be combined into a single definition: A conscious cause of the universe.
Explain to me Theists,why we have evidence of people doctoring the Bible,adding this,removing that?
Why would God allow such corruption or doesn't God exist,they were merely historising the Texts to make it look real ..hence,we all should be Agnostic!
butt starts getting hurt huh.
idiot.
your worldview is by default cancelled
@@hashamahmad7358
Ad hominem attacks arnt evidence!
You have no evidence for God but Faith and metaphysical or semantic Apologetics..my so called World view allows Science, Medicine,Technology and Engineering to enrich your life tc
@@hashamahmad7358
As many secular Logicians and Historians would say the premises for God are lame..if you put shit in,you get shit out!!
Why do Theists believe in a forged Book with ridiculous and improbable events uncorroberated by History,Logic and Science?
Will it ever dawn on Theists,sophisticated word salads don't actually prove or actualise facts or Gods..hence,they have never won Nobel Prizes etc 🙄
czcams.com/video/cnehcYmhQ3k/video.html
@@rationalsceptic7634 as many secular logicians are also idiot hardcore empiricist. totally biased to there materialistic world view no wonder that many great philosophers were theist
theist sophisticated arguments does prove deductively existence of god.
plz ask these secular logicians to prove that world did'nt form five minutes ago.
and why are u everywhere obssessed with god.
these secular idiots play more with people emotions rather then giving them actual logic. the biggest argument against god is the loss and suffering one
also emotive argument.
alvin plantiga is a genius
@@hashamahmad7358
The greatest Scientists,Ancient Historians and Philosophers today are Sceptics..cant you grasp Men not Gods create Religions?
However, It seems to me that the premise is one more step of a very long induction that intelligent design is not necessary. Of course this does not prove that God does not exist, but come on who thinks that the existence of such ethereal being can be proven or refuted once and for all.
lol wtf... that wasd not a direct quote from dawkins... how disingenuous
I suppose you didn’t happen to realise the very obvious that he was dealing with an argument form and not a quote.
@@nate8396 No I did not. And thank you for pointing that out, because I was literally dumbfounded. Anyway, that just means his statement is a conclusion that he understood from what he read; which is his right to do but i find to be weak. Gooday.
“Disingenuous”
Nice try but the irony is that it is actually your argument that is a straw man fallacy and the only person being disingenuous was Richard Dawkins. Alvin Plantinga is an award winning logician who was just emphasising Dawkins self refuting claim using a logical syllogism. This is just how logic, axioms and syllogisms work.
Furthermore, the fact is that the natural sciences are founded on many metaphysical presuppositions such as truth, prescriptive laws of logic, universals, inductive reasoning, empiricism, the uniformity of nature, the one and the many, identity over time and the myth of the given etc. The irony is that you can not prove, justify or ground metaphysical presuppositions in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Has the penny dropped yet?
I’m not making any appeals to authority but Alvin Plantings is considered one of the greatest logicians in the world!!
For example Plantinga took the following premises and syllogism and turned it on its head and demonstrated that it does not necessarily logically follow…
The premises of the problem are as follows:
(1) God is omnipotent
(2) God is wholly good
(3) Evil exists
So the argument basically asserts that taken as a whole, this is a contradiction.
However, the brilliant philosopher and expert on modal logic and analytical philosophy Alvin Plantinga has demonstrated with rigor why this set is not a contradiction (e.g., free will, metaphysics of modality, etc).
Because of Plantinga’s level of logical argument and rigour in books such as “The Nature of Necessity" most philosophers including prominent atheist philosophers have all but stopped discussing the “logical problem of evil”.
Equally, the fact is that this is a rarity in philosophy which is a testament to Plantinga’s depth of argument and his book. Buy it, read it and spread the word. Because it is officially not logically inconsistent to believe that a good and all-knowing supreme ontological ground of reality “that of which nothing greater can be conceived”/God would allow evil.
Furthermore, historically, following Aristotle, a discipline was considered scientific if it could demonstrate its conclusions through a rational process (logical argumentation) and from first principles (such as the law of non-contradiction). If such a demonstration could take place, that is, if there was a rational move from premises to a conclusion and the body of knowledge could be arranged systematically along with this demonstration, the body of knowledge was said to be scientific. This is what Alvin Plantinga has done with the “logical problem of evil”. Since philosophy can demonstrate its conclusions from rational demonstration, historically it has been thought to be scientific (as was theology). However, the notion of something being scientific nowadays usually means that it is identical with the “natural sciences” but this is just a logical fallacy known as (Scientism) and ironically this assumption is a philosophical, that is a metaphysical presupposition that can not itself be justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities!!
(Scientism): “An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of “natural science” applied to all areas of investigation as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities” (Merriam Webster Library definition).
Evidence to the contrary please!! I’ll wait!!
its right you should fear Dawkins.
Plantinga is capable of presenting powerful original arguments, or at least new and original variations on old arguments (such as his evolutionary debunking argument). However, his handwaving dismissal of Dawkins' 'God Delusion' reveals the flaws in his armour. The book is a popular science and culture audience, but is nonetheless revolutionary. The accurate and correct idea that adults with imaginary friends are not mentally well is bound to be unpalatable to those particular kind of mental patients and their handlers, but the former (at least) are suffering a delusional disorder nonetheless.
The sad thing for such delusional mental patients as Christian megacultists is that they are suffering from lack of insight (this is clinical terminology), and must protect their delusion subconsciously due to its maladaptive (or pseudo-adaptive) psychological functions: maladaptive terror management, maladaptive goal appraisal, maladaptive emotion-driven problem solving, and maladaptive cultural learned helplessness. The fact is that the conclusion and premise of The God Delusion are based on the same exact premises - evidentiary and scientific premises - as the arguments of the blind watchmaker. The assertions of TGD are the natural, logical consequence of the facts conveyed by TBW. If you can read TBW and be aware of the scientific episteme, and yet still have an imaginary, bizarre, psychotic, anthropomorphised, psychologised, misogynistic homophobic, impossibly omniscient and omnipotent friend who hates pork, shellfish, unbelief, and losing: then regrettably you are mentally disordered. There's not another coherent and rational explanation.
It's ironic, Plantinga himself has already responded to this argument, right? All these facts undermine belief in God if and only if God doesn't exist.
"Religion was invented when the first Conman met a Fool"
Mark Twain
Haha. A quote used as an argument to deconstruct religion. How intelligent.
But not god
“Mark Twain”
“When the conman met a fool”
Now that was very ironic coming from someone who is relativist and a follower of the church of scientism!! The irony is that the scientific populariser Richard Dawkins makes a six figure sum selling certainty to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists!!
Furthermore, the cost of a private dinner with the man behind the Selfish Gene sets you back a mere $100,000 dollars. It’s beyond absurd and ironic that Dawkins sells tickets to break bread with him and pick his “brains” at €100,000? How much did it cost to break bread with Jesus?
When you compare €100,000 dollars with the going rate for other charismatic preachers!! The Pentecostal evangelist Morris Cerullo, for example, only asks for a voluntary donation of $30 dollars a month to cover the costs of stationery and running costs and wear and tear of enormous church buildings.
Richard Dawkins may be the high priest of militant atheism but when it comes to drumming up funds, he could teach right wing American evangelicals a trick or two!!
Furthermore, was Mark Twain anti-religious? Certainly. But anti-theist? No. Twain loved to make fun of God, but he also believed God was big enough not to be troubled by such mockery:
“Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it.”
Twain’s views on the afterlife, like his views on Providence, varied throughout his lifetime, but his daughter Clara said of him: “Sometimes he believed death ended everything, but most of the time he felt sure of a life beyond.” (Reference: Phipps, William E., Mark Twain’s Religion, p. 304, 2003 Mercer Univ. Press.)
Equally, his writings notwithstanding, several aspects of Twain’s life actually paint a picture of a religious man. Twain makes frequent uncritical references in his memoirs to his Presbyterian upbringing; his funeral was in a Presbyterian church (the Brick Church in New York); and he counted several clergy among his close friends.
In addition, Twain considered his best work to be “Joan of Arc,” a reverential biographical account of a Catholic saint who exhibited all the human ideals Twain found so lacking in the rest of mankind.
Twain’s father was a deist and his mother a Presbyterian and according to Twain’s daughter his letters represent a distorted view of his own personal religious beliefs and that his satirical style was adopted to highlight the religious dogma at the time and inspire Christians to challenge prudish superstitious attitudes.
“I like Joan of Arc best of all my books; and it is the best; I know it perfectly well. And besides, it furnished me seven times the pleasure afforded me by any of the others; twelve years of preparation, and two years of writing. “ - Mark Twain
It’s debatable whether Twain was an atheist in the end as he wrote this reverential book about the Catholic Saint Joan of Arc near the end of his life at 61 years of age. Joan of Arc was a Catholic who was the unfortunate victim of a church in crises, full of corruption due to the politics of this era. But Twain was 61 and this being his last book and his daughters testimony paints an uncomfortable picture for militant atheists who like to Cherry pick his quotes to proselytise about atheism. This is beyond ironic!!
Platinga is intellectually incompetent.
Ah yes. The classic “it must be true because I say so”
@@nate8396 that’s pretty much platinga’s entire argument. He’s a hypocritical clown.
@@inpugnaveritaas I was talking about you.
@@nate8396 of course you were. Halfwit.
@@inpugnaveritaas Lol. I see you like talking to yourself. Do you always call yourself a halfwit, you poor thing? It's okay. Here's 20 cents. Go buy yourself a cookie to comfort yourself lolll
When I talk about Dawkins’s absurdities I keep it to one word. FOOLISH