Thales v. Alvin Plantinga

     Thales notes that we never should employ the supernatural in relation to science, and I add Richard Carrier's^ comment;[ The supernatural theory lacks any kind of coherent explanation of this 'supernatural ' hiding instead behind  metaphors and assertions that merely perform a magic trick on the problems, dazzling crowds with one hand while concealing in the other the fact that nothing is really being solved or explained." And Keith Parsons notes: " Occult  power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good explanation".... " [ The supernatural] hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf"
    This affirms the ignostic challenge that God-talk is semantically meaningful whilst philosophically meaningless. Whilst the atomic theory in principle was verifiable the God-hypotheses is unverifiable.
    Clyde Staples Lewis, Fr. Alfred Ewing and Alvin Plantinga use the  argument from reason or  the self- refutation of naturalism. They claim that unless God planned for our faculties to provide us with obtaining the truth, mindless natural selection would not have given us the reliability of  trusting them, and thus naturalism woud self-refute.
  They don't - and creationist evolutionists and evolution creationists also in general, even Kenneth Miller and Francisco Jose Ayala, master exponents of evolution themselves- comprehend the power of natural selection and other natural causes. Plantinga makes the bizarre example of a man who mistakenly thinks that to play with tigers he must run from them: that is, he saves himself with a false belief! Nay, we have evidence that selection itself causes us to have trust through trial and error of our faculties. Indeed, since that can be unreliable and can't suffice for all matters, we use instruments.
   Does Plantinga speculate  as he does with the problem of evil, that maybe the Devil makes for our errors? Does his defender Victor Reppert think so?
   As Carrier,* my Internet friend, notes, selection itself gave us multiple faculties- unplanned for this- that help act as a check on the others.
  He further notes that should we note a pile of stones that present a message, yes, that does indeed mean someone arranged the stone with the message on them. Whilst should we find  a pile of stones at the base of some cliff, we infer a landslide could or did happen. Empirically, we learn that landslides cause  stones to fall to the ground. The two examples then  are so different.
And George H.Smith# notes that teleological arguments conflate the natural with the planned.
      Again Carrier notes that:"Since our sensory organs would be  lethal if they were regular generators of false information, and sense there would only be selected in the first place if they were regular generators of accurate information, there is no conceivable way on the theory of evolution that our senses could be unreliable to any substantial degree." Again, contrary to Ewing, we naturalists beg no question here as we have that evidence for selection's actions.
   Carrier adds for us not to confuse reliability with authenticity.we see colors which " are only inventions of our brain. " Repetition of seeing the same pattern causes us to know the colors, no matter that they might be different from what our brains interpret them. Nature and our minds follow consistent behavior patterns.
    Plantinga, underrated as a sophist,overrated as a philosopher, and other supernaturalists just have to have that anthropomorphic view that the divine guides natural causes and is  the ultimate explanation.
   Plantinga begs the question as all teleological arguments do that there was divine intent for us to evolve when teleonomy didn't planned for any species to arrive.
   Again, Thales is ahead of supernaturalists! So are other pre-Socratics!
   Theology is just animism having only one grand spirit but no better than that with the many! It explains nothing and lacks factual meaning and verification. Not only that, scientists attest that no one can be virgin-borned, do miracles, be Resurrected, ascend to Heaven in that manner, be the metaphorical or literal flesh and blood for believers to eat and drink as vampires and cannibals.
   Isn't theology just dressed-up woo?
  Viewers, as I myself  have to reassess all this as a fallibilist, surely you will, too! Please, assess this argumentation yourselves, agreeing or disagreeing in part or in whole.


 ^ Carrier "Sense and Goodness without God: a Defense of  Metaphysical Naturalism"
 * Smith " Atheism: the Case against God"