Search results

.

It might be called foolish, but I don't think it's an "argument from ignorance". My understanding of an "argument from ignorance" is that you say something like "we don't know in which way beliefs are related to behaviour, therefore they can't be related". That doesn't seem to me to be the...

Having read the options Plantinga lists, I'm not sure your reasoning is valid. I would consider his list to be exhaustive, and would be interested to know where you think there might be holes. I'm not following your reasoning as to why you think this is the case. How is this an argument from...

Two points on this: 1. Plantinga's argument is not an argument from ignorance. Plantinga lists all the possible ways in which belief can relate to behaviour (rather than just saying we don't know how), and then examines the probability that our cognitive faculties will form close...

Excuse me? On what plane of existence does this make sense? It is quite common to expect that if you're joining discussion on an article or paper, that you will read the paper in question to discuss it. On Slashdot, a common response is RTFA, an expectation that if you want to comment, you'll...

Just a quick response now to one post, then a response to others if I have time: There's not much point discussing Plantinga's argument if you're not willing to read it. This is only part of what he discusses, and you'll have a much better idea of the breadth of his coverage once read.

[/B] Why? On the face of it, it seems to me completely reasonable to assume that we could trust a mind that was designed, and distrust one that was evolved by chance and natural selection. If you read Plantinga's argument, you will see the answer to this question. If you want to respond to...

Sorry, I thought you were going to write an objection to Plantinga, and I was waiting for that. Which bit do you want to know if I disagree with? If you're referring to word definitions, I'm not completely happy with it. It causes more confusion to use words in different ways to what they...

If you read Plantinga's argument, you will see why he thinks that we have good reason to doubt our own mind's understanding. We humans are prone to think that rationality and logic are not subjective attributes of our own reasoning, but are in fact universal laws - laws that even God, if He...

Plantinga argues against this premise. In fact, Plantina also argues that true belief is not even necessary. What is necessary (if beliefs are causally related to behaviour) is that they move you in the correct way. And a belief does not have to be true, or even close to true, in order to do...

If we're having a philosophical discussion, we should use the terms as philosophers use them: http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/b2.htm#bel But if you're adamant that belief should not be used as philosophers use it, it matters not. We'll just have to replace the word "belief in Naturalism" in...

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. You don't think that believing naturalism is true is a belief? I believe that I'm a human. That is a true belief. What's your point?

It's not really an equation. In plain english, it's the probability of rational cognitive faculties given naturalism and "that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine". It seems that in a more recent version of Plantinga's argument he dropped C, so yes, as...

This touches on the heart of Plantinga's argument. He argues the very opposite of what you're saying - that not only is it *not* definite that intelligent organisms will arise, but it is in fact highly improbable. So to counter this point, I direct you to Plantinga's argument. He does. His...

In arguing, there are two types of arguments - deductive and inductive. With a deductive argument, the conclusion necessarily flows from the premises. In an inductive argument, the conclusion is probable given the premises. For example, I might say, "I think George Bush exists, because I've...

I see there are words in your post, but how they relate to the argument in the original post, I'm not sure. You should read more than just the short paragraph on Lewis, and read the whole of the first post. Preferably even reading the article by Plantinga. No, I don't get what you're...

I think you're underestimating the power of Plantinga's argument. Two points, First, just because the universe (we assume) operates according to logical axioms does in no way guarantee that any given creature's mind is going to be logical. We know, for example, that minds that produce...

Hmm, not sure where to send you exactly. I've read the arguments quite a few times, by Craig and others. If you download and listen to one of Craig's debates or speeches on the cosmological argument, you'll likely hear a brief mention for his reasons in thinking the cause is personal. I've...

This is partially true. People like William Craig go further to define arguments that flow naturally from the Kalam Cosmological Argument, demonstrating that the cause must be timeless, spaceless, personal and intelligent. These conclusions are not immediately obvious from the KCA alone.

Well, you're certainly entitled to have the opinion that I haven't studied the specifics - or that if I'd studied the specifics then I wouldn't disagree with you. But I have done a good deal of reading into ID, and plan to do more still. This isn't just my ideas off an article or two. Which...