³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Just found this audio link on one of the blogsites about the 'debate'. The sound quality is a bit ropey however. Happy listening.

William:

I would dispute your use of the word 'transcript' here. The term is usually taken to refer to a written or certified copy of spoken words. This is very much an individual's recorded impression on his laptop of a discussion. It is, as he admits, biased towards Plantinga. There are some comments by others who also attended and some of them had a completely different impression of the proceedings.

In particular, the blogger's remark that:

"Dennett has revealed a deep wickedness in his character"

reveals that he is hardly a very credible witness.

The above should read "the remark by the blogger's friend that Dennett..."

There appear to be some videos (audio only + still photograph) of the debate on Youtube. It's been divided up into several short audio-videos.

Brian --

I agree. I've amended the post accordinging.

Thanks to jayfurneaux for the link.

Here is my detailed preliminary analysis of this foolish and easily destroyed argument by Plantinga. Keep in mind that in my view of the natural world, as I have said previously and I'm sure consistently (petermorrow) the elements of probability and randomness are strictly human mathematical and philosophical concepts that have no place in a rational universe where every event is based on cause and effect, the result of a consistent set of "natural laws" which are always operative everywhere, inviolable whether we humans understand them or not. Every last particle of matter and energy has a completely determined history and future that was fated at the instant of the big bang. There are no exceptions. If there were, the universe would not be rational, its laws subject to capricious unpredictable change. In the philosophy of the existance of a god, this is the operative assumption, that god has omnipotent power to change the universe in any way at any time at will.

"2:36 pm - Plantinga begins to define his terms. He will speak about whether theistic belief is compatible with science. Christian belief is the intersection of the Christian creeds. He will argue that there is no conflict between theistic religion and science."

If science assumes the universe is rational as I explained above, then I've already demonstrated the incompatibility. If science considers that it is not rational (consistent), then science itself is pointless because the laws could change capriciously and every conclusion science has painstakingly arrived at could be overturned unpredictably and endlessly.

"2:37 pm - Plantinga discusses possible sources of incompatibility. You probably are aware of these standard lines. They are going by too quickly for me to record in my cramped position."

"2:38 pm - Plantinga argues that contemporary evolutionary theory isn't incompatible with theistic belief. But instead is in conflict with naturalism. He also thinks that theistic religion could be rational even if science conflicted with it (this last is particularly controversial claim, to my mind)."

Only if once god created the universe, he left it alone forever and wouldn't touch it again. The fact that he could change it if he had a mind to in itself makes it incompatible. "Could be rational." The word could implies doubt. Plantinga must preclude doubt or his argument is lost.

"2:39 pm - The conflict is between naturalism and science. Dennett is smirking under his grand beard. If Plantinga missteps his description of evolution, Dennett is going to pounce on him. Ultimately the argument doesn't quite hinge on all the details of how evolution occurs, so I hope this does not side-track them."

Many if not most of the details are unknown. In this argument they are irrelevant.

"2:40 pm - There is no conflict between theism and the central tenets of Darwinism. God could have used evolutionary mechanisms to create the world."

So far no proof that he did. Only a hypothesis. Not a strong enough argument to be convincing by itself. Plantinga must offer at least evidence if he can't offer proof.

"2:41 pm - God intended to create creatures though, with a moral sense, free will and so on. This intention appears incompatible with Darwinism, but it isn't. God could have caused random mutation (This initially strikes me as odd, but makes sense later.)"

Laughably simplistic. If god deliberately caused something, it wasn't random. It has a purpose and it was designed to fit that purpose. If naturalism equates with a rational (consistent) universe as I described above, any choice of any kind is an illusion. So far most theists only ascribe free moral choice to man. Even theologically Plantinga is on shaky ground.

"2:42 pm - Theism and evolution are only incompatible if evolution is essentially unguided. And some assert that the assumption of unguidedness is essential to evolutionary theory. (Why would they make this additional, non-scientific but metaphysical claim? Why bother to provoke?)"

In a rational universe there is no intelligent directive. Every event being the result of cause and effect is "guided" to conform to the only set of events possible by the operative laws. The universe plays itself out as it must from a subatomic level to a cosmological level. There are no exceptions. Plantinga has made a blunder by assuming guidance is the result of an intelligent intent rather than the consequence of natural law's consistency. He's still proved nothing.

"2:44 pm - Plantinga is talking about Gould. I missed the point. Sorry!"

"2:45 pm - Are random mutations really compatible with theism? We don't have to understand randomness as incompatible with theism."

In a rational universe, there is no such thing as randomness as I explained above.

"2:46 pm - I have gone from 75% to 65% on my battery. Ack!"

"2:47 pm - Don't mix naturalistic metaphysics with science, says Plantinga. Naturalism is incompatible with theism by definition but not evolution."

I'm not sure what that statement means if it is more than mere posturing.

"2:48 pm - Plantinga makes witty joke. He and Dennett both have their own unique style of wit. They are hard to describe. Plantinga has the dry wit of a lighthearted grandfather. Dennett's wit is more like that of someone aiming directly at communicating concepts in the most creative way he can. Plantinga seems more concerned with careful, methodical, clear philosophy, Dennett with exciting, compelling, shocking ideas. Perhaps this helps explain why they have the positions they do."

I don't think their styles or personalities have anything to do with their ideas. It's irrelevant anyway.

"2:50 pm - Plantinga cites Dawkins as saying that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. Dennett nods vigorously."

Irrelevant.

"2:51 pm - Plantinga mentions Michael Behe, calls the argument serious. Dennett appears stunned, understandably. It's not clear whether Plantinga intended to be provocative by speaking up for this 'much maligned' intelligent design theorist. Plantinga says the ID argument is compelling but inconclusive as the complexity of the cell is more probable on theism than naturalism (but it isn't clear how much more)."

Not familiar with Behe. I can't know every nut in the bin. Intelligent Design as a subset of theism is an argument for another day. Complexity is irrelevant. Because something appears complex to humans doesn't preclude it being the result of non intelligent natural processes. The probability argument again rears its ugly and useless head. Either something is or it isn't.

"2:52 pm - A tendency to believe in God is suggested by evolutionary studies of religion, but Plantinga is shockingly arguing that this makes more sense on theism than naturalism. He briefly mentions the main lines of his book, Warranted Christian Belief."

Not familiar with the arguments in his book. Evolutionary studies of an irrational system of beliefs is irrelevant. Humans are not always rational. Some are never rational. This has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

"2:53 pm - The demise of the teleological argument doesn't speak against rational belief in God. This is a standard argument of Plantinga's. He believes that belief in God is properly basic, belief in God is warranted even if the believer has no reason for this belief."

Irrational and illogical. It says you believe what you hope for in preference for what facts dictate and it is all right. How could Plantinga's argument get weaker?

The demise of the teleological argument speaks against Christianity. Christianity postulates god created the universe for the purpose of creating man whom he tests to see if his soul is worthy of salvation.

"2:54 pm - The apparent waste in evolutionary history isn't incompatible with theism and neither is suffering and death in evolution. It doesn't even speak against it. It's a version of the problem of evil, which Plantinga denies is a defeater for theism. There is no logical incompatibility and it has been hard to state a probabilistic argument from evil. It's not clear what the argument is, particularly as the literature becomes more complex."

Plantinga has gone off the deep end. It seems almost pointless here to discuss him. He's beyond being taken seriously. The very concept of "waste" is a purely human emotional one. That some lines of evolution do not succeed or survive is inherent in the process. That goes to the core of it. Inventing the concept of evil and putting his moral stamp on evolution just blows him out of the water completely. He's a joke.

"2:55 pm - The really good possible worlds all involve divine incarnation and atonement and so all the best worlds have sin and suffering - an old view that many Christian philosophers resist today. He even mentions that outrageous (to the naturalist) idea that the demons are part of the errors in human development. Dennett is clearly stunned and amused. He probably thinks Plantinga's claims are insane or at least silly. Plantinga's orthodoxy is completely unabashed. It is commendable that he is wholly without embarrassment, something rare for a modern Christian. Perhaps it signals an attitude to come."

Plantinga is starting to converge with Wilder-Smith in his lunacy. He's an embarrassment to himself.

"2:58 pm - While naturalistic evolution may be simpler than theistic evolution, this is not an all things considered defeater. There are many propositions conjuncted here to which a probability is assigned. The argument is becoming complicated but the effect is that probabilistic judgments become very difficult when evaluating alternative large conjunctions of propositions."

Once again the false arguments of probability and complexity are brought into play. One being irrelevant, the other having no connection with a rational universe.

"3:00 pm - The argument is full of probabilistic language. It isn't complicated for the room but it is complicated to live blog."

Endlessly repetitive extrapolation of the same mistaken assumption. A dead end.

"3:01 pm - A hard problem is explaining the mechanisms of the cell. Plantinga's argument never hinged on this view before. He's arguing this, perhaps, to try to show that even the most maligned arguments for theism have something to them. Dennett will be unaware that Plantinga didn't advance these 'bad' arguments all along. Remember: Plantinga's argument is merely that the complexity of the cell is more likely on theism than naturalism. This is a very different claim than what most understand the ID argument to be. It's not a proof of theism but a comparative probabilistic judgment. The argument would work even if the complexity of the cell were 70% likely on naturalism so long as it is significantly more likely on theism."

Plantinga is venturing into biochemestry and cellular biology, two areas he is not expert in. He should have avoided this. He can quickly get in far over his head and me made to look the fool by people who actually are expert in this area.

"3:03 pm - To be honest, I think Plantinga would do better not to be so flagrant in his defense of these much maligned arguments, as it shuts off the minds of those he hopes to convince. I can see the value, but why not just make the solid arguments that don't cause naturalists to scoff?"

Plantinga's arrogance like others of his persuasion invariably leads him to climb out on a limb and then saw it off.

"3:04 pm - He does say, however, that from agnosticism the design argument isn't necessarily any good. The theist already accepts theism. The claim is merely that the theist's view is confirmed more by evolutionary biology than the naturalist's view is. Note though, that he is not yet to the point of providing defeaters for the conjunction of theism and naturalism. He is still arguing that evolution and theism are not incompatible. Also remember that Plantinga makes these probabilistic claims tentatively."

"makes these probablistic claims tentatively." Even he isn't sure of what he is talking about.

"3:06 pm - Just because there is scientific evidence against theism doesn't necessarily refute theism or provide defeaters. Theism may have evidence on its behalf or it may have a wholly different source of warrant. If the latter is true, then the warrant for theism may outweigh scientific evidence. The Christian doesn't have to change her views according to current science."

There is no scientific evidence against the existance of god...but the is no evidence in support of it either. Therefore, scientists not believing what they have no evidence for must at the very least be agnostics. If they are believers in god, at that point they are not being scientists.

"3:08 pm - Now Plantinga approaches the defeater for naturalism. He claims that naturalism is a quasi-religion and science contradicts it. One cannot rationally accept both naturalism and evolution. "

Pure posturing. Where is his evidence? Where are the contradictions?

"3:09 pm - Naturalism usually is tied to materialism, so for now he will tie them together."

I add parenthetically, the dictionary definition of materialism; the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

Notice this theory does not include the existance of god. In fact it excludes it.

"3:10 pm - The key claim: the probability that our faculties track the truth on theistic evolution is much higher than it is on naturalistic evolution. Plantinga is now reviewing the formal probability theory that the argument appeals to."

Constantly reverts to probability theory. This is getting tiresome. How can anyone argue the certainty of the existance of god based on probability? How can other "philosophers" take this seriously unless their mental faculties are as flawed as Plantinga's are?

"3:11 pm - Plantinga continues to give the argument. Basically, naturalistic evolution selects for belief faculties which form beliefs that track survival - and loosely. But an entirely false set of beliefs might track survival. Naturalistic evolution therefore has no tendency to select for true beliefs. I am radically simplifying the argument; please forgive me."

Naturalistic evolution tracks those survival strategies that worked successfully and those that dead ended in failure under the circumstances they found themselves in and that is all it tracks. Naturalistic evolution has nothing to do with beliefs, it has only to do with survival of the fittest and natural selection. We try to correlate those specie variants that were most adapted to survive with the geological evidence of what those conditions were and find a correlation to explain why one species survived and another didn't. That's the only truth in it.

"3:13 pm - Plantinga is arguing that his argument will work on a variety of versions of physicalism, even on a view that mental states supervene on physical states. It is worth noting that theism and materialism are compatible and so materialism could be true. It is the conjunction of naturalism with evolution that causes the problem."

Mental states and processes are subject to the same inviolable laws of materialism that all other processes are. Mental states therefore cannot supervene physical states because they are the result of them. They have no power to change them. The notion of any choice including free moral choice is an illusion based on rejection of material rationalism. Plantinga is wrong again.

"3:15 pm - Plantinga argues, following Pat Churchland, that in evolution "Truth, whatever that is, gets the hindmost." Dennett is shaking his head and continues to appear amused. Imagine Santa with a sense for the absurd and ironic and a strong snarky streak. Less appealing, admittedly, but still an interesting character."

Once again, what humans say or think at any time does not affect the validity or operating natural laws of the rational material universe including evolution. Truth in evolution can be found insofar as it is possible by comparing theory with evidence and reconciling them by altering the theory's details to fit ALL of the evidence available. If it can't be, the theory must be rejected even if a better one is not immediately at hand.

"3:17 pm - I have heard the Plantinga argument from sites on the internet. I'm honestly at a loss to predict how Dennett will reply. I saw him discussing what appeared to be his comments with Stephanie Lewis (the wife of the late, great metaphysician, David Lewis). Perhaps he has something interesting up his sleeve. I will be disappointed if he doesn't."

Who except other philosophers would care?

"3:18 pm - Plantinga holds that if our faculties aren't truth-tracking then our belief in evolution has a defeater. As a result, we should reject the conjunction of naturalism and evolution."

He has hardly made a case for his conclusion. In fact, all the evidence and logic argue forcefully against him.

3:19 pm - Plantinga is finished.

I'll say.

Philosophers say that the reason we study philosophy is because "the unexamined life is not worth living." Apparently, the examined life fares no better for having wasted the time and effort.

Marcus (and others) --

Can I beg you all to keep replies shorter. I'm enjoying reading your comments: I just can't read so much!

That said, I did find that last piece by Marcus very funny. ;-)

Well at least I now know what my bajoobies are. After reading post 6 they are really quite sore!

Marcus, I will however get back to you with a serious remark later, both on this thread, and on the other one where I rather think our problem is one of how we each use the language of faith and not one of either of us being inconsistent.

It seems to me that it is not possible to prove that a God exists or that he does not. Therefore the only logical position is one of keeping an open mind. Of course we may have an opinion as to which we think the more likely but to argue this out as though it is possible to prove something hopeful in the extreme.

I suppose philosophers must have something to do.

GinaPK --

In the absence of any proof that it is not possible to prove that God exists or does not exist, isn't it logical that philosophers should pursue the arguments on both sides of the debate?

Otherwise: If you have an argument that shows it's impossible to prove God's existence or non-existence, I'd like to see it.

Marcus- You wrote this above:

'Plantinga has gone off the deep end. It seems almost pointless here to discuss him. He's beyond being taken seriously. The very concept of "waste" is a purely human emotional one. That some lines of evolution do not succeed or survive is inherent in the process. That goes to the core of it. Inventing the concept of evil and putting his moral stamp on evolution just blows him out of the water completely. He's a joke'.

Is it just me or have you totally misundertsood what he was talking about? (correct me if I am wrong for perhaps I have misunderstood). I am fairly sure Plantinga realises that watse is an intrinsic part of the evolutionary process. All he is saying is that it is not incompatible with theism. As for your quote about 'inventing the concept of evil' and putting his moral stamp on evolution, damn that is hilarious. Again, Plantinga is merely arguing that the suffering and death resulting from the evolutionary process is not incompatible with theism. He argues that such an argument against evolutions compatibility with theism is an extension of the 'problem of evil'. 'The problem of evil' itself is the problem of reconciling belief in a benevolent God with the suffering that exists in the world.

It honestly seems to be that you totally misunderstood the argument being presented!

"Marcus (and others) --

Can I beg you all to keep replies shorter. I'm enjoying reading your comments: I just can't read so much!"

Mr. Crawley, besides the fact that half of what I posted was a cut and paste copy of PART of what was said in the referenced article, when combined with my own comments I don't think the total was longer than the article taken in its entirety YOU suggested WE read. But it is your blog so if you want replies with less depth to them to conserve time and space, so be it.

"That said, I did find that last piece by Marcus very funny."

Hmm, it wasn't intended to be. Must be my basic nature. I just have a funny outlook on life maybe because I find it so absurd.

kRP

Here's the pertinent part of the account. Let's parse it out together and see what it means. I'll give my understanding and you tell me what you see in it;

"2:54 pm - The apparent waste in evolutionary history isn't incompatible with theism and neither is suffering and death in evolution. It doesn't even speak against it."

I assume that by waste in evolutionary history, he means that various unsuccessful lines of evolution like Neanterthal fail and therefore were a wasted effort. It is the concept of waste itself that is incompatible with the process of evolution on many levels. For one thing, waste implies a directed effort that was in effect misdirected. Directed by whom, god? For what purpose? Of course it is incompatible with theism. Why would god create a system of evolution that results in lines of species that become extinct before man even exists? Unless of course you admit that the creation of man is not the ultimate purpose of god's creation. Or unless you assert that the fossil remains of extinct species were created directly as we find them and are not the remains of living organisms at all (the young earth hypothesis.)

"It's a version of the problem of evil, which Plantinga denies is a defeater for theism. There is no logical incompatibility and it has been hard to state a probabilistic argument from evil. It's not clear what the argument is, particularly as the literature becomes more complex."

Well it's clearly as transparent as mud. Does this mean waste and pain are a version of the problem of evil? Did animals endure pain before man existed? Were they evil? Was evil inflicted on them? Why? By whom or what? For what purpose?

"...it has been hard to state a probabilistic argument from evil."

Can you explain what this means? Is it even English? What is a probabilistic argument? An argument he'd probably use? An argument that is probably right? It reminds me of the time I read the red line opt outs Britain had for the EU Constitution only I found that clearer (I can imagine what the full blown 400 page EU Constitution must have read like. No politician who supported it ever claimed to have read it.) BTW, note the double negative "isn't incompatible" and then "neither" in the very first line. You know you're in for slow plodding trying to understand it as soon as you see it.

I haven't listened to it all yet, but:

OK, so Plantinga is just a philosopher, not a biologist, but you CANNOT cite Behe as supporting your argument and retain credibility. Behe's notions of irreducible complexity have been trashed time and time again - they are simply fallacious. It would be like a modern scientist citing phlogiston theory or the flat earth to support their case. I would advise Alvin to get with the programme. If he's really that desperate for arguments, then he has already lost.

Minor point of clarification - Plantinga's beef is not *belief* in god, but philosophical arguments for the existence thereof. The belief is very probably a separate matter entirely. I have yet to find anyone, for example, convinced by those foolish ontological arguments.

Marcus-

'Mr. Crawley, besides the fact that half of what I posted was a cut and paste copy of PART of what was said in the referenced article, when combined with my own comments I don't think the total was longer than the article taken in its entirety YOU suggested WE read. But it is your blog so if you want replies with less depth to them to conserve time and space, so be it.'

That was really funny, made my day. I suspect even William laughed at that one.

The post to which I first replied appeared to misunderstand the point that Plantinga was making ie, that it isn't incompatible with theism. In your most recent response you are directly addressing Plantinga's point. That is all I was trying to get you to do in the first place. I should also state clearly that I am a non-believer!

'Why would god create a system of evolution that results in lines of species that become extinct before man even exists? Unless of course you admit that the creation of man is not the ultimate purpose of god's creation'.

I pretty much agree with you on this.

'"It's a version of the problem of evil, which Plantinga denies is a defeater for theism. There is no logical incompatibility and it has been hard to state a probabilistic argument from evil. It's not clear what the argument is, particularly as the literature becomes more complex."

Firstly I would suggest that this statement is merely the synopsis of Plantinga's sentiments, in the opinion of the blogger. This is not directly from Plantinga's mouth. In my opinion this is merely saying that the problem of evil argument fails to show that there is a logical incompatibility with theism. In terms of probabilistic arguments, he seems to be saying that it is difficulty to consider the problem of evil in terms of probability. Plantinga has made the same point about Dawkin's argument that the existence of God is highly improbable. I tend to agree with him that such arguments are tenuous, in logical terms.

When Dawkins or anyone else starts talking about probability, in my view they hang themselves. That's the point I want to give up at. That is a point of complete departure for me. How can there be any deviation from consistent, eternal, omnipresent natural law which opens the possibility of randomness or odds in a rational universe? In the philosophy of materialism which undelies the study of natural science that is a basic unshakable tenet without which it is pointless to study science at all. It is Dawkins who is mentally ill too IMO refusing to give up the illusion of free will.

BTW, what is a probabilistic argument? What does this statement mean in your opinion;

"It's a version of the problem of evil, which Plantinga denies is a defeater for theism." (don't look for help from pastorphillip. I'm still waiting for an explantion about the waters and the deep from him and also about how the light and the dark existed together before "He" separated them. So far we haven't gotten past the second or third sentence in the bible between us.)

Marcus-

agree with you about Dawkins. In my opinion I think the person is merely defining such arguments that Dawkins make about the probability of God's existence as 'probabilistic arguments'.

As regards Pastorphilip, I hope he takes you up on your offer to go through the entire bible. That would be hilarious. I have never encountered anyone who begs the question as much as him.

KRP

...or runs from it so frightened when it is fiannly asked.

Pastorphillip, if you are out there....imperfect me created by a perfect god? How can that be? By what logic is that possible?

Marcus & KRP

Are you not being a bit hard on Dawkins.
When he uses the word probability he may not be addressing the likes of yourselves but a more general audience and just be using casual language to convey himself as a reasonable and open minded person.
We all say 'probably not' to folk when we mean never ever.

rochcarlie, the word probably implies uncertainty. This negates the very argument Dawkins proports to make, that the universe is governed exclusively by natural law. Have you read what I've had to say about this? He can't have it both ways. As soon as he raises the possibility that more than one outcome is possible for a given event, the element of uncertainty leads to the question of why this is so. I'm not talking about human ignorance of natural law which will forever likely be true to one degree or another or the fact that in 6.023 times ten to the twenty third gas molecules humans can't tell one from another, I'm talking about the fact that each one has a history and future that is predestined by natural law which can not be violated. This is where he has blundered. I don't care if he wants to look reasonable or open minded. His statement is a contradiction of his own assertion. It's not a happy thought that everything you think you have decided is not really your decision at all but accepting the unpleasant is part of being a scientist and not being a theologian or other philosopher. They are in the feel good business. Scientists deal with the real world on its own terms, not on those as they would have it. Wrong is wrong. Too hard on Dawkins? Up to now I've been far too easy. What makes him immune from being criticized for his mistakes?

Marcus

I'll leave the faith/certainity/doubt issue to one side and comment only on one aspect of post 6

Just one thing I wish to note however on this point is I was most certainly not seeking to imply you were being inconsistent.

I fully accept your explanation of your world view but it seems to hinge on this point, that a consistent rational universe must be devoid of god, as that god, if he is omnipotent (as gods presumably must be) can and indeed must, of necessity, be capricious.

Well what if that god were omnipotent, but not capricious?

The word would be immutability.

22 petermorrow, I didn't say that. How can you follow a discourse as convoluted as Plantanga's when you can't even get my simple words correct? I said that he would have the power to capriciously change the laws of nature at any time or in any way if he wanted to. That is what I said explicity, not that he actually did it. Having this power alone would be sufficient to make the universe irrational.

But now that you mention it, I think there may be examples in the Bible where he must have. As I recall in the Battle of Jericho, he held the sun up in the sky longer than usual giving the Israelites more time to fight their enemies and vanquish them. (One of you biblical scholars please clarify this....how about you pastorphillip?) Anyway I'm not going to look it up right now. If he had, this would ordinarily have had disterous consequences since he would have had to stop the rotation of the earth. Can you imagine what the tides alone would do if the earth suddenly stopped spinning for some reason? BTW, the speed of the rotation of the earth at the equator is over 1000 miles an hour only you don't feel it because the atmosphere and water travel along with it so he would have had to have stopped them too. And how else would you explain his parting of the Red Sea in the Book of Exodus?

Marcus

You and I are obviously predestined to speak at cross purposes.

Frankly your words are far from simple, one must also unpick a particular mindset in order to understand what you are saying. In fact this is true with all conversation.

You appear to be saying that if an all powerful God did (or even didn't but just could) intervene in the natural word then everything becomes irrational.

You seem to have entirely missed the point that god, if he exists, upholds and sustains the universe, it is subject to him, not the other way round.

You don't honestly expect me to accept the existence of god in the first place and then have a problem with him controlling the sea he made? What you appear to mean is that god must be accountable to your understanding of the world.

Obviously if you are going to define the debate in your own terms then no one, Plantinga, me, or god, has any hope of response.

Mark,
rochcarlie, the word probably implies uncertainty. This negates the very argument Dawkins proports to make, that the universe is governed exclusively by natural law.

Actually, this is entirely incorrect, and undermines your point. "Probably" refers to our state of knowledge about something, NOT the actual state of the thing. If it turns out (as I suspect) that the universe is strictly deterministic, this does not negate the "probably" used in this sense, because by the time we work it all up through quantum mechanics and chaos/complexity, we may as well be dealing with "probablies" and "randoms" - as near as makes any distinction in practical terms irrelevant.

If we say that mutations in DNA are random with respect to the phenotype, we are NOT saying that they are uncaused, or even that they are strictly formally "random", any more than the trajectories of individual gas molecules are formally "random".

The point is that they may as well be, and (critically) this can be tested very well using standard statistical methods within which randomness is an expected entity.

Randomness does not frighten scientists, whether it is ultimately deterministic or not; strict determinism is NOT the same as "predestinationism", since the only way to find out the evolution of such a system is to simulate it *exactly*, in which case, the simulation and the actuality are isomorphic (back to Tegmark again), and at best you have simply carried out a duplication of the test system.

So I think Dawkins emerges unscathed from your valiant attempt at a criticism.

Marcus,

I'm touched that you missed me!

On imperfect human beings, you wouldn't know about that- since you haven't managed to get as far as Genesis 3! (Let me know when you manage to get out of the 'deep water' and turn the page!)

Once again, I encourage you to consider the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I submit that you cannot explain Him, apart from divinity.

"In Him dwells all the fulness of the godhead bodily." Colossians 2v9

PastorPhil, surely you're kidding? The gospel accounts of Jesus the Nazarene are hopelessly contradictory, and he's every bit as "divine" as you are, and dead as we all will be.

petermorrow,

"You seem to have entirely missed the point that god, if he exists, upholds and sustains the universe, it is subject to him, not the other way round."

How does he "uphold" and "sustain" it? This can only make sense by him interfering with it in some way, by altering the laws that govern it whether he created them or not, by altering the course events would take if he didn't. Even the most insignificant seeming alteration would change the entire fabric of what would happen throughout the universe as a result. A different outcome and no longer rational.

"You don't honestly expect me to accept the existence of god in the first place and then have a problem with him controlling the sea he made?"

Quite the contrary, if god exists as you contend, then he can alter the sea or anything else at will. But then don't tell me the universe is rational. At least not in the way I have defined what a rational universe is.

"What you appear to mean is that god must be accountable to your understanding of the world."

No, what I mean is that if an omnipotent god exists, then the universe is not rational. I have not precluded the possibility of his existance, merely pointed out the consequences if he does exist.

heliopolitan,

I don't think you understand what I have said or meant. As I define a rational universe, natural law and materialism are not contradictory because they are one and the same thing (I'm becoming familiar with the terminology philosophers use.) This is where Pantanga tried to draw a distinction. In this view of the universe, the concepts of probability and randomness have no place either in actual events or in suppositions about them. One of the consequences is predestination where every event is 100% dead certain without exception. Whether human beings can or can't understand how or why is irrelevant as is their very existance. But if they don't accept this as true, they cannot believe in a rational universe. Einstein did not deny or negate a clockwork universe which is what I am talking about, quite the opposite. What he did was merely to prove that Newton's notion of how the clock works was badly flawed.

BTW, a model can never be 100% accurate because it is not the thing it is modeling itself. There must always be at least some element of error. I think this should be a basic axiom of any study of the branch of philosophy called ontology.

Pastorphillip, I may jump ahead to read Genesis III again but I must caution you, I read and critique with a 21st century eye and not a 1st century eye. What may have seemed impossible to a 1st century mind, an unexplainable miracle, could be ordinary and easily explainable by natural law to mine. For example, to a 1st century eye, the ceramic gas logs in my fireplace could be construed as a burning bush which is not consumed. An illuminated lightbulb would be unexplainable. That and countless other experiences that were unknown then and were or would have been unexplainable are familiar everyday occurrances to us today. It is always necessary when reading about the past to take into consideration what point of view those individuals alive at the time who were in the account of events including those who relate it had. Much they said cannot be taken as "gospel truth" in the larger sense not because they deliberately lied but because their knowledge and experience could not put what they experienced in a larger context of the greate truth known today. Imagine what the remote control for a television set or other device would have seemed like more than say 100 years ago. Nothing short of witchcraft.

I think I'm ready to take on all philosophy, not just those with a theological basis. The more of it I read and read about it, the more it all sounds like bunk to me. Of the three branches of philosophy a) philosophy of natural law, b) cosmology and ontology, and c) moral philosophy, I think at least one and a half and maybe two of them can be impeached whatever point of view they express. Only moral philosophy remains unassailable until it can be related to the physical universe. Philosophers should be very wary and frightened when their abstract postulations of natural law come into contact and conflict with the physical universe which is the area of expertise scientists have a monopoly on. Unless they begin by being expert scientists themselves in the area they wish to discuss, they sooner or later make themselves look like fools. Aristotle's notions of natural science are laughable while McIntosh should have stuck to thermodynamics of mechanical machines he is familiar with and well schooled in and stayed away entirely from the thermodynamics of chemical reactions he clearly knows nothing about.

pastorphillip, I've read Genesis II and III and wow do I have lots of questions. BTW, I've read two different versions so far (several times each) the King James version and the New International Version. I'm sure there are others. Any one you like in particular? TNIV is in more contemporary language. Do you think that alters the meaning? It was after all translated from other languages in the first place.

Mark,
I don't think you understand what I have said or meant.

Well, you've clarified it, and I think I understand you very well indeed! If a system is purely deterministic, then a mathematical model of that system *IS* isomorphic to the thing itself. Indeed, the Game of Life is such a system.

You have a point about never knowing the full starting conditions in real world examples - this is the source of chaos theory, and these small imperfections in our knowledge blow up into an inability to predict the long term evolution of a system in anything other than probabilistic terms.

Let me cut to the chase - even a fully deterministic universe poses NO problems for a Dawkinsian worldview, and the concepts of randomness *from our perspective* still apply, because of the issues I referred to in the previous paragraph. And as I mentioned, full strict determinism is NOT the same as "predestination", because the "pre" implies that it is known/knowable in advance, and that is not possible without simulation, which is isomorphic with just running the damn thing.

Helio,

Re the Gospels - I think you're confusing 'contradictory' with 'complementary'; the accounts of Jesus' life tie together remarkably well. Any apparent contradictions are usually solved by closer study.

On the Resurrection - you obviously haven't considered the evidence - let me encourage you to do so. The Christian Church would hardly have lasted for over 2000 years if Christ were still in the tomb!

Marcus,

Re versions of the Bible...I grew up with the King James (Authorised) Version, but more recently use the New King James (or Revised Authorised), which has updated much of the old english. I would usually recommend that people use a translation rather than a paraphase - though the latter can be useful if a particular passage is unclear.

Whichever you use - keep reading!

(Though 3 in the morning may not be the best time!)

I'm stunned that an important debate like this was not captured more carefully in audio/visual media. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I dont want to in any way devalue the work of Plantinga and co... I do think it is very important and a part of his responsibility to use his talents...

but I recently saw a person of faith here decry the lack of philosophical awareness of ordinary church members.

I think we need to beware any tendency towards a Christian gnosticism... where only an elite with an understanding of philosophy are really "in the know" and acceptable to God.

This would be intellectual pride. Remeber salvation is not through philsophy but through Christ himself.

How many fantastic churches have been built without higher degrees? Quite a few. How many people with higher degrees could not build a great church? Quite a few.

It is the danger, a big temptation for us all, to be experts in knowing all ABOUT Christ and yet not KNOWING Christ.

Remember, Christ came as a joiner and explained the mysteries of the universe in farmyard stories.

Paul touched upon the dangers of this attitude in Colossions;-

"I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally.
"2 My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,
"3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
"4 I tell you this so that no-one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
"5 For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.
6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him,
7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
8 See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9 For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
10 and you have been given fulness in Christ, who is the Head over every power and authority."



Remember Peter, a big dunderheid of a fisherman who said he found it difficult to understand Paul's letters?

In Acts 2 we read that about 3000 people were converted by his preaching!!! How many phds can do that?

In Acts 4 we read the same point that Paul made about KNOWING Christ, but this time the recognition was from the general public who saw it in the lives and preaching of Peter and John;-

"13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized
THAT THEY HAD BEEN WITH JESUS."


Now of course Paul was in the intellectual premiership, so this is not to decry learning or philsophy.

But for many people, such arguments are really way beyond their capacity. Are we then to conclude that they cannot be accepted by God because of their intellectual capacity?

Of course not. Nobody here would suggest such a thing. Just saying.

;-)

OT

Marcus - fyi

I agree with Pastor Phil - keep using a translation you are comfortable with.

I like the New Living, NKJV, Amplified, KJV, Young's Literal Translation at different times and for different purposes.

As a point of accuracy, the KJV and NKJV new testaments rely on the traditional texts of the early greek speaking churches. this is not necessarily the case with other translations.

OT

Heliopolitan, I'm still becoming familiar with the terminology of philosophy. I understand now from consulting a dictionary that predestination is determinism with god, that is that god has pre-ordained all events. That is not what I meant to say, I was talking about determinism, my mistake.

I think the word for foreknowledge would be called precognition. Neither precognition nor any congnition for that matter is necessary for determinism, so if I read you correctly we agree on that point. Determinism BTW is a direct consequence of materialism as I see it.

Like randomness and probability, chaos is a strictly abstract human conception which has no place in a materialistic deterministic universe. How humans perceive events are not the issue, only whether or not there is more than one possibility for them to occur. That there isn't is the consequence of the clockwork universe determinism postulates and is the only justification for the effort of scientific investigation. If there was more than one possible outcome, science could never predict which of the possible outcomes would occur and so its laws or theories would be ultimately worthless.

"If it turns out (as I suspect) that the universe is strictly deterministic, this does not negate the "probably" used in this sense, because by the time we work it all up through quantum mechanics and chaos/complexity, we may as well be dealing with "probablies" and "randoms" - as near as makes any distinction in practical terms irrelevant."

You won't let go of the fact that issues like complexity as seen through human eyes are irrelevant. It does not matter whether or not humans exist. In a rational universe, everything exists objectively without the need for anyone or anything to have any conscious awareness of it.

"Randomness does not frighten scientists"

The very concept of it ought to. Ultimately, it is a violation of the principle of cause and effect at the heart of all scientific theory and discovery.

"If a system is purely deterministic, then a mathematical model of that system *IS* isomorphic to the thing itself"

No, I don't think I said that. Not as I understand the term isomorphic, having the same form or shape. What I said was that any model of the real universe including a mathematical model must of necessity be flawed because a model of something is not the something itself and therefore will not behave in precisely the same way. We try to gain knowledge by creating more exact models and then testing them to see how closely they predict events but eventually they will inevitably fail if we test long enough or our test instruments become sensitive enough. Then we refine or correct the model from there and the process repeats endlessly. In effect, Newton's laws approach Einstein's at very low relative velocities. Einstein was a refinement of Newton and without Newton, Einstein never would have been able to make his gigantic leap forward. He knew that by paying tribute to him BTW. In the end, we may approach truth asymptotically but never reach it. I think that is where knowledge has its limits. Now if there really were a god of the omniscient type many postulate, he would not suffer this limitation.

Every time Dawkins utters the word "probably" he makes me cringe. Either he's guessing or he is negating determinism.

Pastorphillip, we'll discuss Genesis III soon. I have many questions and observations about it. I think you may be surprised at the way I view it.

To listen to Plantinga discussing with philosophers witha a better grasp of Theism than Dennett





also

Alvin Plantinga and Hilary Putnam Discuss God's Existence

at



GV

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.