# Alvin Plantinga?



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 23, 2015)

Has anyone read any of his books?  Any recommendations?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2015)

Did you ask upstairs? I wouldn't read anything from a Christian philosopher. That would be like getting a steak house review from a vegetarian.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 24, 2015)

660griz said:


> Did you ask upstairs? I wouldn't read anything from a Christian philosopher. That would be like getting a steak house review from a vegetarian.



You should read Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, C.S. Lewis and the like.  (Really any one of them will do, they're basically all the same).  But it will show you where any argument thrown up by a believer comes from.  

To sum up what they all say: "There has to be something that didn't come from anything and that HAS to be God".

I'm sure you can see the problem.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 24, 2015)

660griz said:


> Did you ask upstairs? I wouldn't read anything from a Christian philosopher. That would be like getting a steak house review from a vegetarian.



Naw.  I don't get the feeling there is a whole lot of philosophy or apologetic guys up there.  The ones who are tend to post down here anyway, and I thought maybe some of you AAs might have...especially Bullet or Striper.  They seem to be well read.

As to not reading Christian philosophers, I like to read atheist philosopher, some more than others


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You should read Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, C.S. Lewis and the like.  (Really any one of them will do, they're basically all the same).  But it will show you where any argument thrown up by a believer comes from.
> 
> To sum up what they all say: "There has to be something that didn't come from anything and that HAS to be God".
> 
> I'm sure you can see the problem.



I disagree regarding them all being the same.  I think it's more accurate to say they all have different styles and to a large extent,  different audiences, and different goals.  They do share the same overarching worldview however.

Bertrand Russell and Dawkins exhibit the same worldview, but as a thinker Russell is a Heavyweight whereas Dawkins is an embarrassment to any thinking person, regardless of worldview.  It would be a great injustice to Russell to lump them together as one-in-the-same.  Russell was a great mind.   Dawkins is the Benny Hinn of atheism, and that view is shared by *many* atheist and skeptics alike.  Anyway......


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 24, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I disagree regarding them all being the same.  I think it's more accurate to say they all have different styles and to a large extent,  different audiences, and different goals.  They do share the same overarching worldview however.
> 
> Bertrand Russell and Dawkins exhibit the same worldview, but as a thinker Russell is a Heavyweight whereas Dawkins is an embarrassment to any thinking person, regardless of worldview.  It would be a great injustice to Russell to lump them together as one-in-the-same.  Russell was a great mind.   Dawkins is the Benny Hinn of atheism, and that view is shared by *many* atheist and skeptics alike.  Anyway......



The Benny Hinn of atheism........What would be the atheist equivalent of faith healing?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> ........What would be the atheist equivalent of faith healing?



See the southpark episodes "Go, God, Go" #1 n 2.  Dawkins is in them both.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2015)

....it's a cartoon, but hilarious.  Those guys skewer everybody.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What would be the atheist equivalent of faith healing?


YouTube>search>Richard Dawkins

Pick any video and watch


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> The Benny Hinn of atheism........What would be the atheist equivalent of faith healing?



Evolution.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 25, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> YouTube>search>Richard Dawkins
> 
> Pick any video and watch





SemperFiDawg said:


> Evolution.



Show me one with comparable theatrics.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 2, 2015)

http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html

This article deals with Plantinga and the "middle ground" scientists.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 2, 2015)

bullethead said:


> http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html
> 
> This article deals with Plantinga and the "middle ground" scientists.



_"Thus, according to compatibilists, the elimination of the supernatural from science requires "faith" and this makes it no better than religion. Religion is also a valid way of knowing but it doesn't conflict with true science—or so the argument goes."_

Why would anyone listen to an idiot who wants to include "The Supernatural" in a discussion of science?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 2, 2015)

> Returning to methodological naturalism, if indeed natural science is essentially restricted in this way, if such a restriction is part of the very essence of science, then what we need here, of course, is not natural science, but a broader inquiry that can include all that we know, including the truths that God has created life on earth and could have done it in many different ways. "Unnatural science," "Creation Science," "Theistic Science"—call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view. What we need is a scientific account of life that isn't restricted by methodological naturalism.
> Alvin Plantinga (1991)


What in the world qualifies this guy to be discussing science?


> include all that we know, including the truths that God has created life on earth





> what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view.


Those 2 statements are probably the least scientific things Ive ever heard


----------



## bullethead (Aug 2, 2015)

If you look at the quotes on the left side of the page of that link from scientists they  explain why god and the supernatural is left of of science.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 2, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Any recommendations?



Yes:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2014/02/is-alving-plantinga-for-real-alas-it.html


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 2, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> Yes:
> 
> http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2014/02/is-alving-plantinga-for-real-alas-it.html



The comments/discussion section is good stuff.  A discussion of the difference between Agnostic and Atheist:

_Disagreeable MeFebruary 14, 2014 2:01 PM

Hi Adam,

>Why can't agnostic be synonymous with uncertain?<

It should be. However, uncertain should not be synonymous with <100% certainty, because 100% certainty on anything is irrational. Certainty should refer to very high levels of confidence (e.g. 99.9%) not 100%.

>What we do lose with language if Massimo said<

We'd lose the word atheist, because based on 100% certainty, there are no (rational/honest) atheists.

>I think there are many true believers who would describe themselves as 100% certain that there is a god.<

Then they are either irrational or dishonest/hyperbolic. I'm sure there are also those who would describe themselves as 110% certain there is a God.

>Why is it unacceptable to reserve the word 'atheist' for those people who are the diametric opposite?<

Because many who are atheists understand that 100% certainty is irrational, but see a value in distinguishing between extremely high levels of certainty and being entirely undecided._


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 2, 2015)

Funny, too:

_Patrick GFebruary 14, 2014 5:31 PM

There's another position - which happens to be mine.

Believer = "I believe that god exists"
Agnostic = "Perhaps, perhaps not"
Atheist = "I dont believe that god exists" or "I believe that god doesn't exist"
Another position = "I don't care".

Asking me if god exists is like asking me if Jeff Bridges really is a nice guy. I don't care.

I get the impression that my attitude is becoming more and more common, if I look at my friends. It's high time that people who like to classify other people find a name for the group I'm belonging to.


Disagreeable MeFebruary 14, 2014 5:40 PM

Apatheist_


----------



## bullethead (Aug 2, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> Yes:
> 
> http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2014/02/is-alving-plantinga-:cool:for-real-alas-it.html


That was a good read and the comments below it were equally as interesting. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 2, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> What in the world qualifies this guy to be discussing science?
> 
> 
> Those 2 statements are probably the least scientific things Ive ever heard



1) What disqualifies him?

2) Those are not scientific statements.  They are metaphysical statements about science.  Metaphysics is a much broader field in which science is just a small part.  I think that is the context in which it's best understood as he is a philosopher.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 2, 2015)

BTW thanks for the links.  The first only mentions Plantinga in passing and while I'm just beginning to read Plantinga it's obvious the author of the second link misses the point of Plantinga's arguments entirely.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Aug 2, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You should read Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, C.S. Lewis and the like.  (Really any one of them will do, they're basically all the same).  But it will show you where any argument thrown up by a believer comes from.
> 
> To sum up what they all say: "There has to be something that didn't come from anything and that HAS to be God".
> 
> I'm sure you can see the problem.



I'm sure you can't see there's not a problem.

Any argument thrown up by any other is based on, "well, there very likely is no God."


----------



## bullethead (Aug 2, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> BTW thanks for the links.  The first only mentions Plantinga in passing and while I'm just beginning to read Plantinga it's obvious the author of the second link misses the point of Plantinga's arguments entirely.


The first link quotes an entire paragraph excerpt from Plantinga and then addresses it.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 2, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I'm sure you can't see there's not a problem.
> 
> Any argument thrown up by any other is based on, "well, there very likely is no God."



That's not true.  There's more than just those two possibilities.  Not understanding _that_ is a problem.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 2, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 1) What disqualifies him?
> 
> 2) Those are not scientific statements.  They are metaphysical statements about science.  Metaphysics is a much broader field in which science is just a small part.  I think that is the context in which it's best understood as he is a philosopher.





> include all that we know, including the truths that God has created life on earth


There is no field in which - that we know its truth that God created life on earth.
Maybe its the words "we know" and "the truths" that are tripping me up.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 2, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> the author of the second link misses the point of Plantinga's arguments entirely.



I believe the comments section to that discussion is still open, I'm sure the author would appreciate you helping him understand.   Give us a heads up when you post there.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 3, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> I believe the comments section to that discussion is still open, I'm sure the author would appreciate you helping him understand.   Give us a heads up when you post there.



To what end....getting into a debate in which no matter what is true the other side won't concede?  Naw.  I don't have the time nor inclination.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Aug 3, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That's not true.  There's more than just those two possibilities.  Not understanding _that_ is a problem.



I suppose you mean the idea of not caring whether or not there's a God? Now, if you want to talk about problems...

If not this, perhaps you could illuminate me?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 3, 2015)

> To what end....getting into a debate in which no matter what is true the other side won't concede?



Isn't that a description of this forum?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 3, 2015)

> To what end....getting into a debate in which no matter what is true the other side won't concede?





660griz said:


> Isn't that a description of this forum?


Well one difference -
SFD specified -  





> no matter what is true


I would think A/As here would concede that there is a god(God) if it was actually proven to be true.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 3, 2015)

> I would think A/As here would concede that there is a god(God) if it was actually proven to be true.


I think you know which way I was looking. 

We/I would concede unless it had to be 'proven' by a man, or a book.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 3, 2015)

660griz said:


> I think you know which way I was looking.
> 
> We/I would concede unless it had to be 'proven' by a man, or a book.



Yeah cause it's a given that anything  proven by a book or by a man is an outright fallacy.

Wow!  Yep.  Reminds me of why this is a waste of time.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 4, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah cause it's a given that anything  proven by a book or by a man is an outright fallacy.
> 
> Wow!  Yep.  Reminds me of why this is a waste of time.



Not anything. However, a God should stand on his own and shouldn't need a man to prove he exists. 

Not surprising you missed the point. Reminds me of why this is a waste of time.


----------

