miércoles, 19 de enero de 2011
martes, 18 de enero de 2011
viernes, 8 de octubre de 2010
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"
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"
jueves, 23 de septiembre de 2010
Thales
Thales was and - is explosive for the sake of knowledge1He started methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism by excluding any gods from activity in worldly affairs. Those who aver that he stated that the world is full of gods mistake his position: he would have meant by that that natural forces are themselves their own bosses or that magnets have souls when he meant that natural forces act on their own. He was both the first philosopher and the first scientist.
Nowadays after science finds no need to use God in methodological naturalism in that He explains nothing, purveyors of intelligent design are trying to bring Him into science as the boss of natural forces and - creation evolutionists and such evolutionary creationists as Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson, Francisco Jose Ayala and Francis Collins are proclaiming that science and religion go hand in hand, but that obfuscates and - blasphemes science in that it finds no intent behind natural causes and explanations as Lamberth's atelic or teleonomic argument adumbrates that the weight of evidence evinces teleonomy- no planned outcomes- rather than teleology-planned outcomes so that to argue for God's intent is to contradict those very natural causes. Natural selection, the non-planning,anti-chance agency of Nature acts like a sieve in determining what lifeforms succeed: to add God therefore would contradict it, making it irrelevant in effect.
Consequently, creation evolution and evolutionary creationism both are oxymoron, and conflict with rather than make Him compatible with science. Certainly, there are indeed scientists like the mentioned ones who think that they are compatible but that is cognitive dissonance- compartmentalisation - at work. Therefore the accommodationists err philosophically and -scientifically when they prattle that religion and science are compatible! Only from the side of religion could they be seen compatible as it is compatible with the paranormal,its twin superstition that make up what Dr.Paul Kurtz calls " The Transcendental Temptation," a must read book.
Obfuscating science is wrong. Miller cannot deliver the goods that God is involved in natural phenomena when he finds Him acting at sub-atomic events: that is a wild guess like what theologians guess anyway at His attributes and referents1 That is the god of the gaps! Read Amiel Rossow's article on the yin and yang of Miller and what Jerry Coyne, my friend, notes in " Seeing and Believing" about Miller and Giberson's approach with their obscurantism, both@ Talk Reason.
The Occasionalists themselves make the reductio ad absurdum- and no straw man- that Nicholas Malebranche finds in stating that He does the actual execution of the act when we strike the eight ball! That brings into stark relief the absurdity to claim that He is that Primary Cause when the phenomena themselves are the primary causes.
We ontological naturalists find that people should not only in science but in other matters exclude any God.
And then arises the presumption of naturalism and the igostic-Ockham challenge to supernaturalism.
Nowadays after science finds no need to use God in methodological naturalism in that He explains nothing, purveyors of intelligent design are trying to bring Him into science as the boss of natural forces and - creation evolutionists and such evolutionary creationists as Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson, Francisco Jose Ayala and Francis Collins are proclaiming that science and religion go hand in hand, but that obfuscates and - blasphemes science in that it finds no intent behind natural causes and explanations as Lamberth's atelic or teleonomic argument adumbrates that the weight of evidence evinces teleonomy- no planned outcomes- rather than teleology-planned outcomes so that to argue for God's intent is to contradict those very natural causes. Natural selection, the non-planning,anti-chance agency of Nature acts like a sieve in determining what lifeforms succeed: to add God therefore would contradict it, making it irrelevant in effect.
Consequently, creation evolution and evolutionary creationism both are oxymoron, and conflict with rather than make Him compatible with science. Certainly, there are indeed scientists like the mentioned ones who think that they are compatible but that is cognitive dissonance- compartmentalisation - at work. Therefore the accommodationists err philosophically and -scientifically when they prattle that religion and science are compatible! Only from the side of religion could they be seen compatible as it is compatible with the paranormal,its twin superstition that make up what Dr.Paul Kurtz calls " The Transcendental Temptation," a must read book.
Obfuscating science is wrong. Miller cannot deliver the goods that God is involved in natural phenomena when he finds Him acting at sub-atomic events: that is a wild guess like what theologians guess anyway at His attributes and referents1 That is the god of the gaps! Read Amiel Rossow's article on the yin and yang of Miller and what Jerry Coyne, my friend, notes in " Seeing and Believing" about Miller and Giberson's approach with their obscurantism, both@ Talk Reason.
The Occasionalists themselves make the reductio ad absurdum- and no straw man- that Nicholas Malebranche finds in stating that He does the actual execution of the act when we strike the eight ball! That brings into stark relief the absurdity to claim that He is that Primary Cause when the phenomena themselves are the primary causes.
We ontological naturalists find that people should not only in science but in other matters exclude any God.
And then arises the presumption of naturalism and the igostic-Ockham challenge to supernaturalism.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
