Well that just proves that "philosophy" rots ya brain!

@@r.i.p.volodyaor that you're brainless.

​@@r.i.p.volodya that's what a sect thinks

because that is the god of the philosophers, the god of Aristotle. What is absurd is the christian god

@@henpines How is the Christian God absurd? be very specific with just one example.

I did that to a Buddhist, and he said, "Ouch." I asked, "What is that?"

You missed a lot of the joke, @@JP-hr3xq After the Buddhist asks if the hod dog vendor if he could make him "one with everything", the hot dog vendor makes the hot dog and hands it to the Buddhist, who pays with a $20 bill. The vendor puts the bill in the cash box and closes it. "Excuse me, but where’s my change?" asks the Buddhist. The vendor responds, "Change must come from within."

Jarrod Kennedy golden 😂👍🏻

Not in any sense of the word. Shameless Christian apologetics not philosophy. This talk was just embarrassing.

Christianity is, in part, a philosophy. A philosophy does not have to be a philosophy you agree with in order to qualify as a philosophy.

A youtube user with a homophobic username is a fan of a Christian philosopher. Go figure.

David Plummer. You are right that philosophy does not have to be something you agree with. 100% AGREE, but their is a distinction you are missing. Philosophy is the pursuit of truth; when you already have a strong belief/bias/prejudice towards something, you look for certain ideas and thoughts that affirm your already established worldviews. This is called confirmation bias. In this Case, Mr. Plantinga's belief in God. Hence, at times, he sounds like a religious apologist than a philosopher because he is not looking for the answer whether god exists or no. He is looking for information which already affirms his pre-established belief. If you call yourself a philosopher, you need to leave your personal belief/faith behind because in such a case of discussing whether God exists or no? You sound like an apologist than a philosopher.

Random Clips Name me a philosopher that does not hold a deep view & then bases a philosophy around it. Show me a person that does not have a bias. Claiming that his bias exists, therefore his conclusions are wrong is not sound logic. If you are an atheist, you can say all day that there might be a Supernatural. That could be true within that stance. You cannot say that God might exist. It goes against your stance, & is incoherent. From this, could you honestly say that the atheist considers any philosophy that allows that God exists? No! They hold an axiom that God does not exist. They could not maintain their atheism & say that philosophy even might be true. There is an equal & opposed bias. The point being, it comes down to the individual, not the espoused believe. Some will allow that they are wrong. Others will not. Thus, Sam Harris, will be an atheist until he allows for God to exist. As long as he holds atheism, Any philosophical stance that disagrees with his atheism, he will deny. Simple as that. Of course the other option is that Sam Harris will allow for God as a possibility. He stops being an atheist. Then from there he could rationally hold that God might be real, & thus Any philosophical stance is now open to him. He might accept it or deny it. It is at least really possible. Then, let's say, Sam Harris becomes a Christian. He now has the opposite view from his start. There is a God & he is aware of which one. He will not accept Any philosophy that denies that assertion. He Knows God exists, & holds that as true. Did Sam ever lack a bias? No! On the ends that is clear. Still, Sam will have things he accepts as true in the middle also. They maybe nuanced, but he still holds them. Any philosophy that conflicts will be challenged by him. Ironically, Sam will probably hold he is open minded all the way through. When in fact, he has somethings he accepts as axiomatic the entire time. The only thing that changed is WHICH axioms he accepted. He Never loosed himself from bias. Everyone is biased, EVERYONE. You, me, Sam, your mum, & every guy or gal you meet telling you they lack a bias. If you truly lacked bias, then you would hold no philosophy true & you would be brain dead. You cannot divorce yourself from holding Beliefs. You do have the ability to change which beliefs those are. Do you think your bias is why you felt his bias makes him off in his philosophical stance, therefore claiming what you did? I know it did. You have a bias & now you are aware of it. Could he be right? You bet! Maybe he is, you would have to allow for the possibility. Drop the axiom that disallows his stated beliefs from being right & examine both sides. Give the Best argument for each side, & then ask yourself where the holes are. Remember you fallacies. Also be More skeptical of things you agree with. You can end up saying things that feel good & are devoid of real impact or meaning. God Bless (don't let that effect your opinion of what I said)

"Plantinga is a bad ass and will go down as one of the all-time greats" All time great what, is my question.

Yes

The interviewer is simply in over his head. He’s not qualified. I don’t know the details; he probably has other areas of expertise. Platinga maybe could fill in gaps and “steel-man” the interviewer’s arguments to make his own replies more interesting and to show extra class and graciousness. Then again maybe Platinga was expecting something else and surprised. Well whatever.

​@ibperson7765 The interviewer is Daniel Greco, a philosopher now at Yale . The first few of his questions were just some common questions other philosophers typically raise with regard to Plantinga's argument, which I think were totally fine to be raised in the setting of a talk for non-philosphers.

+Jake Danger i just want them to first define 'world class philosopher'

+Rat Bastard How about a philosopher who teaches (or has taught) in the graduate school of philosophy at one of the most respected university in the nation with one of the largest philosophy departments?

Prosper . Just because a professor teaches at a respected graduate school does not mean he is over Scrutiny. Isn't philosophy literally the exploration of thoughts? Someone's reputation/qualifications is/are not a contributing factor/factors.

@@brettdeacon7012 whatever 'quals' i could claim are irrelevant to the empty honorific of whomever may be labelled as 'world class' - though i must admit that i was momentarily tempted to join you for some boastful bragging about my own place in academia. no, it's something of an ad hominem to suggest my question is ignorant, but also something of an appeal to your own supposed authority to proclaim such an honorific as deserved by plantinga. aren't fallacies fun? hope you made something out of that history degree anyway

@@jokerxxx354 Are you guys seriously asking the question who created God in a philosophy video. God by definition has no creator. If God is created, he isn't God.

EXCEPT it doesn't agree with the Bible. If Adam and Eve came about by evolution this means that there was death BEFORE sin which the Bible (Paul) definitely doesn't support. There is no compromise between macroevolution and Bible creation.

Interestingly, Bert's student, Wittgenstein, was obsessed with the issue of solipsism.

Alvin's work is hard - can't just absorb it in a few hours.

Aren't we all?

Reformed Epistemology - in some way, is derived from John Calvin, or at least Calvin held to some mode of knowing for certain by way of the Spirit.

***** Interesting. I need to look into what "Reformed Epistemology" is with respect to Calvinistic/Thomistic views. God Bless

Plantinga is a Molinist, which is largely what Arminius was, himself. And no: Molinism/Arminianism is NOT semi-Pelagianism.

I'm glad that Platinga is not a Calvinist. The idea that God forces people to sin, judges them for their sins, then burns them in Hell forever to show us all how much he hates sin, is repugnant to me. But then again, maybe I'm not a member of the "Elect" and therefore cannot understand the "ways of God".

+James Gadomski (Barely Protestant) Plantinga comes from the Dutch Reformed Tradition. I've never heard him claim to be a Molinist.

True that. But I liked his question even tho some had obvious answers

nazra7 Me too! I just said that. I said it differently like everything proceeded out from Him but I agree. So even when they say something can’t come from nothing, I agree. 😄

Glenn Peoples He created all but it doesn’t say from nothing. It proceeds from Him. His words are something.

+ahmed barakat Regarding "we believe there are other people", I think that a solipsist might argue that you cannot know that what you believe is empirical evidence is anything more than a projection of your mind and that there would be no way of knowing otherwise.

Ahmed the same "empirical evidence" that means we KNOW other people exist could also make us KNOW that people in our dreams when we sleep exist.

Tim Crinion actually Tim, It's not the same empirical evidence. We live a real world with real things and real consequences, form which we deduct and infer and solve puzzles. The more puzzles we solve the bigger our brain (of course I'm overly simplifying). Dreams seem to be a state of mind reflecting on those realities in an abstract manner and sometimes we are able to weave stories that we can recollect later.

It seems like the same evidence to me. I have been just as convinced, while dreaming, that I'm talking to someone in the street as I have been when I *really* talk to someone in the street.

Tim Crinion when you're dreaming, you're not in a logical state and you don't conduct yourself with rationality, so if a donkey starts to talk to you, it's ok because you dreamt him up. What I'm saying is reason is required to deduct evidence and when you're dreaming, evidence ain't exactly the point.

The belief that "That shadow moving across my field of vision is NOT a dangerous predator intent on eating me" is probably true most of the time. By contrast, "That shadow moving across my field of vision IS a dangerous predator intent on eating me" is false most of the time. But the second belief, although less likely to be true, is certainly more adaptive in the long run, because it stimulates an adaptive response -- running back to the cave or climbing a tree, just in case. That's why adaptivity, not truth, is the goal of evolution. Evolution knows nothing of human technology -- it's still in the stone age because it moves too slowly to keep up with technological advances. Cockroaches have nearly zero intelligence, and therefore nearly zero knowledge of truth, but they are very adaptive, and they've been around a lot longer than humans have. They'll probably be here after we're gone, too. believersareidiots.blogspot.com/

It also sounds like he really, _really_ wants to commit incest.

Levi Paladin Are you morally sick?

Functional Savants No, are you?

Levi Paladin Do you like incest?

Functional Savants Maybe Levi thinks Greco bringing up incest repeatedly was kind of ridiculous or distracting, and maybe derailing the topic somewhat

Well that is what philosophy is sir. Everything can be question with critical thinking, but lets forget about that and focus on what you said. I understand your point about significance of negative to appreciate positive, but the question is how much? How much evil, sin, pain and suffering do you expect an all powerful god to make us appreciate the +ve? How do you explain evil like a 3 year old daughter being molested and sexually abused by her own father? How do you explain things like holocaust and hate for different races in general or other horrible things? You get my point. If God is all powerful and all good, God can reduce or balance the degree at which these horrible things happen at a high rate.

If you create a clay pot and you move that clay pot from your front step inside your house, would that be morally wrong? Why then do you accuse a Creator of moving his creation from one location to another? The people were actually warned through Noah but most of that generation mocked him and lived in their sin. The judgment was actually brought upon themselves. I don't know if you still needed an answer for this but that would probably suffice.

Kirk Lincoln I love your explanation!

Where do you get this idea that killing >99% of life on Earth was ok?? Jews & Christians say that the event occurred and that it was necessary but few of them say that it was ok. Try reading Genesis 6:6 before making such a flippant comment.

@@AnnoyingMoose so it was necessary but wrong?

Zadratube Nope, that there is a fail.

"loci," i.e., the plural of "locus."

well, there's only one of them

Plantinga had fun with it here.

Solipsism comes in multiple forms. One version holds that one's own existence is the only thing that can be known for certain. Not necessarily that one is the only thing that exists.

Unless you have noted the wrong time frame and he does so elsewhere, Plantinga does not put forward a circular argument. He does not conclude from his assertion of a dualistic noetic structure that the world is not purely material. In fact, it is his assumption that the world has immaterial attributes that allows him to propose his dualism. I do not intend to say that Plantinga is infallible, but the guy is known for his logical precision; I doubt that he would make an obviously fallacious inference.

Rodion Raskolnikov Plantinga falsely assumes that truth content would be contained in a configuration of neurons if materialism was the case, and then argues against the possibility of his absurd assumption. This is strawman argumentation. The evaluation of the truth values of beliefs occurs at a different level of ratiocination than long-ingrained "facts" such as truisms or mathematical formulae. Evaluation of beliefs is a dynamic process far removed from somatic evolution for survival. "Thinking" is not best described by saying that beliefs are static patterns of neuronal clumps. Thought is a dynamic and continuous process of internal communication between various regions of the brain which enables truth values of beliefs to be evaluated and altered based on the evidence of experience.

cruelsuit1 Perhaps you should be more clear about what your point is. First, I am not sure that his argument is a strawman argument. Second, I am not sure that you have shown how Plantinga does commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. I am not saying that you are wrong, but I do not see how you are right.

Rodion Raskolnikov He gave a simplistic explanation about what a "belief" is in the brain and argued against the simplistic explanation which he himself provided.

cruelsuit1 First, I do not see how that is relevant to the contention concerning the circularity of the argument that David posed in the above comment. Second, whether his explanation is or is not simplistic is irrelevant, it's whether or not it is true or false that matters. One could argue that every explanation we give of any particular position is simplistic to some degree; such a claim is relative to the complexity the argument necessitates. In philosophy, simplicity and accessibility can be seen as a virtue. Besides, I doubt that neurologists can give a true account of belief formation. Anyways, I fail to see how your abstruse account of belief formation exposes the trouble in his argument. Show me how your account of belief formation is a better account and why it subverts a particular premise in his argument. If I had to guess, I would say that you disagree with his point about how neurological activity occurs prior to and independent of the content of the belief that it adopts. But why should your account be taken as a better account than his? Because yours is more complex? Of course, that does not make your account of belief formation a better one. If you read his actual argument, you will find that it is much more complex than what he presents here, in the Veritas presentation. Perhaps you would prefer to read the EAAN rather than listen to this discussion.

Including every argument, including this one.

The point is that given that explaination of origin, Naturalism forces you to adopt the unreasonable position that there no NO chance our faculties, from random variation and natural selection, could be unreliable whatsoever. Therefore, Atheism is unreasonable.

@@Againstfascist What your saying is false, just because it's possible to be wrong doesn't mean every reasonable conclusion we arrive is therefore wrong. This is proven by all the cases we are able to correctly explain event in reality. Plantinga's argumentation is philosophical nonsense that tries to argue that naturalism is unreasonable by fiat.

@@illithidhunter6177 If your cognitive faculties could be wrong, how could you know what was wrong and what wasn't? You couldn't. Now, you could say that the odds of your cognitive faculties being correct are higher than not, therefore you are reasonable in believing in their validity. But in every way that behavior could relate to the content of belief, under Naturalism, there is a low probability of the content being true. Therefore you would need to be agnostic about pretty much about everything.

That's his point. That's why Naturalism is false.

nazra7 but you’re also making a statement as to what people should believe. Mainly that they believe that they shouldn’t be telling others a particular thing to believe.

I agree totally, that most of the stories must not be taken literally! That is exactly the problem which athism uses as a "proof" againt Christians!!! Berdyaev Nicolas "The destiny of man" is a very good book on that subject!!!

nazra7 We are entrees for God, that's for sure. Babies may be the dessert, who knows?

He did. Some of us believed what we saw, the others mocked what everyone saw and said it was imaginary.

It’s not meaningless. I actually do think God does only morally good things. If He said everyone needed to die in a flood to start over He was right and just in His judgement. He isn’t human. Humans don’t have the right to judge the entire world based on their evil thoughts. We don’t know their thoughts. We didn’t make the place. We don’t have any super long term goals for earth. Like, 6000 years from now I want the earth to look like this and these are the things I’m putting in place so that those humans can do this at this time. No, you were in His Devine plan, from the beginning, as was I. And the way for you and I to happen, were everything that happened before us. We’re in the plan, do we want to be involved in the plan, or do we want to sit on the sidelines and watch?

lol

You should tell all the editors at top-rated journals and prestigious publishers to offer retractions to his decades of work. I’m sure you can convince them.

Lol. You are presupposing mathematical truths to prove that truth exists from Naturalism in an absolute sense. That's called circular reasoning. Here is you: 1.) Mathematical truth exists. 2.) Naturalism accounts for all cognitive functions. 3.) Therefore truth exists due to Naturalism. Let's do this another way: 1.) God created everything. 2.) God accounts for all cognitive functions. 3.) We have cognitive functions, therefore God exists. You have to start in a place that doesn't assume the conclusion.