Plantinga: The God Delusion

[Al Moritz]

Because they posit that the centerpiece of his existence is nonexistent.

No, as should be clear by now I am not shaken by that at all. What I do have problems with are certain kinds of argumentation, however.

Thanks for the kudos, anyway.

[Don]

    Bullshit. This is my business. It's also Al's business, and anyone else's who can contribute to the discussion. I have no use whatsoever for drones who "mind their own business".

On the contrary, a "live and let live" attitude is the better way to go. 

[Catison]

I've been absent from the board a long time in order educate myself about music and other things.  I've realized that learning doesn't come from debate.  Ideas should be judged and tested, but that process doesn't produce them.  For most of my life, I have been uninterested in religion, but after examining the facts and reasoning I became a true atheist.  It was Dawkins' call to arms which finally pulled me over from agnosticism.

Like many of you, I do science.  I'm an engineering grad student and my particular field is more mathematically and logically rigorous that others in my department.  In short, I am required to prove every statement I make, which is actually a process I enjoy.  However, putting the metaphysical up to that process inevitably dooms it to failure.  How can something extra-physical possibly be judged by the standards of science.   How can we hope to understand God when, by definition, He is outside of our understanding?  These questions, I believe inevitably, lead to dismissal of all things which we cannot see or trust others to have seen and understood.

After reading Alex Ross's The Rest Is Noise, I have come to understand that I know very little about music.  And more importantly, Art will not save the world.  We are all humans, making human things, including Art.  Our science is an amazing achievement but ultimately limited by the neurons in our brain.  Science can help us know, but how we use this knowledge is what tells us we are human.  Technology saves us and destroys us, and there is no guarantee that is the former which will prevail.

Human understanding of the cosmos, how they were created and, more importantly, why they were created will ultimately fail to produce suitable answers.  Human answers, even when guided perfectly by the scientific method and philosophy, are in the end just human musings.  In the end, science is really only good for predicting the future and unraveling the past as far as it is useful to us.  Any thing else are just the silly games drogulus referred to.  Are they really anything else?

If you believe the gospels in the Bible, there have been times when the metaphysical has touched upon the fabric of our human world.  The miracles cannot be tested, by definition.  And that is why science fails to understand them.  Accepting them requires a leap of faith, again, by definition.  But that same leap of faith shouldn't be tied to intelligence, but to philosophy.  Intelligence is a person's ability to understand the world, which doesn't necessarily require them to believe in only the things which can be proven.

A case in point would be this.  Suppose a metaphysical event happened and was recorded.  How would you go about verifying it to be metaphysical?  I think there would have to be an exhaustive search for all possible physical explanations and when they failed, part of the population would believe it to have happened and part would dismiss it as an illusion.  Forever it would remain a mystery.  Hasn't this happened exactly with the metaphysical event of the Resurrection?

So it is not so stupid to believe, I suppose.  As I have come to learn this, I have started to think about a very interesting proposition.  What if Jesus's life, as more or less related in the gospels, was a real history?  I am not so sure yet what the answer to that question is, but I am examining it as best as I can with my limited brain.

And I have greatly enjoyed this current debate.  Both sides have been extremely knowledgeable and clear, and it is great fun to read.

[Florestan]

Excellent post, Catison.

[karlhenning]

On the contrary, a "live and let live" attitude is the better way to go. 

To address that remark to Ernie is one of the most beautiful instances of optimism I have yet seen on this thread.

[Al Moritz]

To address that remark to Ernie is one of the most beautiful instances of optimism I have yet seen on this thread.

[drogulus]

On the contrary, a "live and let live" attitude is the better way to go. 

    But that's not the contrary. Live and let live is exactly what I do in life. It has no application to the Plantinga: The God Delusion thread, though. Here arguments are not just permitted, they are the whole point. And what could "minding your own business" mean in this context, other than you don't care for how others are responding in this thread? How is that "minding your own business"? _{(not that I would require anyone to do such a thing)}

And I have greatly enjoyed this current debate.  Both sides have been extremely knowledgeable and clear, and it is great fun to read.

     Mind your own business.

[Brian]

    But that's not the contrary. Live and let live is exactly what I do in life. It has no application to the Plantinga: The God Delusion thread, though. Here arguments are not just permitted, they are the whole point. And what could "minding your own business" mean in this context, other than you don't care for how others are responding in this thread? How is that "minding your own business"? _{(not that I would require anyone to do such a thing)}

     Mind your own business.

[drogulus]

   

     Prof. Plantinga answers objections to his metaphysics from an uncomprehending materialist.

[Al Moritz]

LOL!

[Danny]

If God is absolute form and is not made up of created matter, I'm wondering why his simplicity matters so much (in relation to the existence of organized complexity mentioned earlier). 

[Al Moritz]

... and is not made up of created matter,

Well, that is exactly the point. Dawkins's claims about the improbability of God all rest on his confusion that God must obey the exact laws that complex matter obeys, and material complexity indeed only arises through evolution.

Dawkins thinks his chapter 4 of The God Delusion is the absolute clincher, but it is precisely this chapter that theists smile the most about. Dawkins appears to envision God as one humongous, gigantic brain, and this is funny indeed.

[karlhenning]

Delusion, truly 

[drogulus]

If God is absolute form and is not made up of created matter, I'm wondering why his simplicity matters so much (in relation to the existence of organized complexity mentioned earlier). 

     It doesn't really matter unless it stops being metaphysics and figures out how to be real. One way metaphysics works is to dream something up and then give it a name. Since there's nothing to compare it with, you can do this to your hearts content. The other way, known henceforth as "the other way", is to think up a name and find something to apply it to. So long as that thing doesn't resemble too closely something that actually exists you won't have any trouble. 

     The only time you're likely to have trouble is when your scheme corresponds closely to what evidence-based systems like scientific materialism say. Then you can be accused (with certain justice, it must be said), of making metaphysical assumptions not strictly warranted by what actually can be known.

     Here's the odd part. The people who make the most out of this objection are proposing a metaphysical scheme that's overtly anti-verification all the way through! Which leaves one wondering: Just exactly how do they propose to make their speculations secure enough to be a real alternative?

Well, that is exactly the point. Dawkins's claims about the improbability of God all rest on his confusion that God must obey the exact laws that complex matter obeys, and material complexity indeed only arises through evolution.

Dawkins thinks his chapter 4 of The God Delusion is the absolute clincher, but it is precisely this chapter that theists smile the most about. Dawkins appears to envision God as one humongous, gigantic brain, and this is funny indeed.

      Dawkins is trying to help. Since you appear to have no interest in understanding what you say, he proposes to make sense for you. The fact that he doesn't do a very good job of it says more about the faults of what is being proposed than it does about his attempts to understand it. As the theists say when they think we're not paying attention, no one is meant to understand this stuff.

     

[Norbeone]

Well, that is exactly the point. Dawkins's claims about the improbability of God all rest on his confusion that God must obey the exact laws that complex matter obeys, and material complexity indeed only arises through evolution.

And why don't these laws apply to God?

And, where did God come from?

[Al Moritz]

          Dawkins is trying to help. Since you appear to have no interest in understanding what you say, he proposes to make sense for you. The fact that he doesn't do a very good job of it says more about the faults of what is being proposed than it does about his attempts to understand it. As the theists say when they think we're not paying attention, no one is meant to understand this stuff.

Now that was a funny comment.

[Don]

    But that's not the contrary. Live and let live is exactly what I do in life. It has no application to the Plantinga: The God Delusion thread, though. Here arguments are not just permitted, they are the whole point. And what could "minding your own business" mean in this context, other than you don't care for how others are responding in this thread? How is that "minding your own business"? _{(not that I would require anyone to do such a thing)}

No, that was not my meaning.  I felt that Al was was lumping atheists together, saying that they do this or that, disparge the views of theists, etc.  So I just wanted to point out that most folks (believers and non-believers) don't disparage anyone but do respect the rights of others to hold and practice their own views.  Sorry that the way I phrased my comment did not come out clearly.

[drogulus]

    No, Don. You're evil, but in a respectful way. 

   

[Florestan]

         The only time you're likely to have trouble is when your scheme corresponds closely to what evidence-based systems like scientific materialism say. Then you can be accused (with certain justice, it must be said), of making metaphysical assumptions not strictly warranted by what actually can be known.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. - Martin Rees

[Al Moritz]

And why don't these laws apply to God?

The laws of complex matter don't apply because God is not matter. He created matter.

And, where did God come from?

God does not come from anywhere, rather, He is the eternal basis where everything comes from.