Alvin Plantinga: Divine Action

[@yhwhizlife1]

Alvin is awesome, and has a humorous wit to himself, he really shows this at 44:50 - 45:50. Its easy to see why hes one of WLC's favorite philosophers.

[@milkipresswebmag4765]

Excellent! 350 years ago, Jacques Abbadie wrote a big book of arguments for God. Alvin Plantinga seems to walk in this courageous way!!

[@milkipresswebmag4765]

@Greg W I found a lot, but most of the arguments for God are not mathematics. It is often experimental, like Bergsons's one. Brentano one is more about physical science. Lots of kind ;-)

[@milkipresswebmag4765]

@Greg W Hmmm.. you seem sarcastic, hope everything allright. It is an intellectual exercise to discuss those arguments, believing in God is much wider question. Those arguments just give clues, it gives some points, not a total answear about God. It is a paradox that often people reproach believers to be not rational, and when they want to explore the question with rationality, people reproach them to use rationality. Keith Ward has wrote good books about it. But I'm french (as yu probably noticed.. my english is so bad!!) it is hard to read all of him

[@milkipresswebmag4765]

@Greg W If you are conviced about my english, that's a proof of miracle!! (I try to improve it listening movies in original version, but it speaks so fast!!)

[@honahwikeepa2115]

Natural Science as two miracles. Something from Nothing and someone from no one.

[@ivjdivfjalekvvjp]

Clever, sir. Bravo. You atheists are so very witty and brilliant.

[@piotrklinger8419]

He is not an atheist.

[@heavymetalmusichead4969]

Lmao

[@jackcrow1204]

That opening was hilarious

[@SystemUpdate310]

This Alvin dude is hilarious.

[@oldterry9356]

Please see “The Myth of Religious Neutrality” by Roy A Clouser

[@honawikeepa5813]

Awesome.

[@honahwikeepa2115]

Brilliant

[@stevenb5778]

what is the difference between apologetics and christian philosphy?

[@steventhepooh]

Steven, this particular lecture uses aspects and tools of philosophy in general for the purpose of apologetics. Technically speaking, anything that is for the particular purpose of defending the Christian faith and its doctrines is apologetics. Christian philosophy is more of a broad spectrum. Alvin Plantinga explains it best himself if you want to read what he thinks Christian Philosophy should be. You can read his article on the subject here: www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/advice_to_christian_philosophers.pdf

[@ComradeAgopian]

No one is perfect .

[@Kenji17171]

Why

[@Svengalish0000]

and by hilarious you mean awesomely smart? yah.. he IS hilarious

[@alaski88]

After reading many of the ignorant bloviating comments below, I found little to leave an impression of intelligent design among some of the participants. Though I find the teleological argument quite compelling, Sauniz1 has shaken that belief, where I find myself wondering how this persons could possibly have a purposive creator. Certainly God meant some for less noble positions in His creation.

[@richie8811]

Lulz.

[@Craevus]

I now know science doesn't preclude my Pastafarianism

[@adnannajeeb5619]

Science does not preclude many things, many of which are silly. It is very important to know what the limits of science are. Perhaps a good essay to read would be Hayek’s ‘The Pretense of Knowledge.’ And have a blessed day.

[@BeyondtheChaos1]

Well that's a strange thing to say. Lots of brilliant minds today and in the past have believed. Same is true for most major religions and holy books...

[@BeyondtheChaos1]

I think he takes libertarian free will though.

[@whoami8434]

Every intelligent atheist is an agnostic...

[@mackdmara]

Joel Falla Atheism is a truth claim & agnosticism is a claim not to know truth. Thus, no atheist is agnostic about god.

[@mackdmara]

Ariiel11RP If I believe there might be a God (or am uncertain if you could know), can I then rationally say there is not a God (a lack of belief)? I believe your confusing not following a faith & having a belief about an idea. If a thing might exist, you have to hold it as possible. If you believe it possible, then you have a believe that affirms its possible existence. This is not a lack of belief in God. I can run down the full argument if you want, but it isn't short. If you are even passively unsure (not you could be wrong, but *Real uncertainty*), then you are no atheist. In short, If you *Know* there is no God, you are an atheist. If you *Know* there is no God & resent the idea, you are an antitheist. If you are rationally uncertain about if God is or can be known, then you are agnostic. These are all distinct *Truth Claims*. Knowledge informs belief. Call yourself whatever you want, but the purpose of language is to convey meaning. Saying your absolutely sure a thing is not real, but it might exist, is a contradiction. Think about what I said, before responding. You might find that what you meant, you don't have an active belief in God, is not the same as saying, you know there is no God.

[@mackdmara]

Ariiel11RP A couple of things. That four square you just out lined is incorrect. Gnostics are a specific group of early philosophers in Ancient Greece. They believed that the spirit is real & this physical substance is an illusion. You are to be freed from your body to ascend to your true form (after following a preparation time). That is its philosophical base. Currently, a small group of atheists redefined it as that four square you just gave, in an attempt to change the narrative. It is mud in the water, not clarification. I can see how it might seem logical, but if you know the philosophical stance, it just makes things murky. As to what is truth? That is a complicated thing. I would assert you can personally *Know* God. Others would assert only scientific evidence could tell you. Others would assert truth is an illusion. Some assert you do not exist & some that I am an automaton, not a free willed being. There, you need to decide what you think truth is. How do you know truth?

[@mackdmara]

Ariiel11RP That is the real dilemma. If I accept skepticism, then I can only know I exist. Beyond that, nothing is certain & everything is probably. If I accept naturalism, then the world is determined & we are no more significant than a rock falling down a mountain. Like the rock, we do what we do, because we must. Both paths lead to some level of doubt, so being an atheist is not bright (since you don't ever know). If you assert truth can be known, then God can be known. The goal & the path to it, almost always fit. The harder the path, the greater the end. God is the greatest good, thus the path to such knowledge takes most people a life time of work. Even the first step, trust, is very hard. You could know God as more likely than not much quicker though. The fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the historical argument, & the nature of Christ, will lead you there quickly. Just do not get thrown off by followers vs the belief itself. There are bad examples of every truth claim out there, but none of those reflect if the claim is valid. You need to find the person who is living the principles & evaluate it. Of course, you need to know the Bible if you want to test that. You can know truth, but be prepared to be wrong often. If there is truth, then there is only one answer that is right & that is the minority, not the majority of paths. William Lane Craig has a good idea of it. Reasonable faith is his website, or youtube search his name. Gary Habermas is a historian, or Mike Licona.

[@mackdmara]

Ariiel11RP Interesting. The canaanites being killed is hyperbolic, sure, but it happened. The Big Bang could not have happened by itself from what we currently understand about it. There are metaphysical theories about it starting, but they lack evidence. How could you know the Universe could exist without God? Gravity is not sufficient unless you redefine the word nothing. If morality is subjective, then NOTHING is Moral. Thus, feeding a child or feeding them to a bear, is morally equivalent. You would also have to claim Jains & Nazis are morally neutral when removed from their cultural context. I cannot swallow that. It is too far fetched. As to WLC being someone making god of the gaps arguments, no. He is using what we know to support his beliefs, not a lack of information to support them. I cannot justify your claim. Look over what he said, not what others claim about him. As to Jesus doing miracles or resurrection, sure they are reasonable. If you believe God exists, even as a possibility, then He would be able to interact with the known Universe. He also should be able to reform matter as desired. E=mc^2, energy is matter if you can form it. God could, Jesus is God & thus rose. No problem, unless you think God is only a man. That is anthropomorphism, just you are taking a superior being, God, & claiming man is his equal. Much like people saying their dog is their child. No, it is a dog. God is infinitely greater than us, by definition.

[@SeanMauer]

I agree that why God does somethings is beyond our capacity to understand. I agree that there must be a physical mechanism by which God interacts with our universe to perform miracles. I don't agree with creation ex nihilo. If Plantinga, or any one else for that matter, thinks about this beyond the standard dogma they will see that ex nihilo is neither biblical nor logical. I recommend the video "Creation Ex Nihilo Revisited"

[@monkeyboy21324]

Genesis does not posit creation "Ex Nihilo" but creation "Ex Theo."

[@SeanMauer]

monkeyboy21324 Agreed, and also the Apostles say the things that are seen are made from things that are unseen. This would be creation ex invisio.

[@SeanMauer]

***** No one is saying this is not disputed, I'm saying that the evidence is stronger on the side against ex nihilo. The bible uses the same word "created" in Genesis 1:1 for the heavens and earth, as it uses in Isaiah 45:12 for mankind. We know that man was made out of the dust of the earth. Even Hebrews 11:3 indicates that what is seen is made of unseen things. Although this is not pantheism, it is much closer to panentheism. Now from the scientific angle: Would God before the universe be equal to, in terms of power, God plus the universe? Or would God plus the universe add to more power than just God alone before the universe? It would seem to me that God can not have an addition of power. What do you think?

[@SeanMauer]

***** No question, just a comment.

[@SystemUpdate310]

I meant hilarious in a good sense.

[@sauniz1]

Beliefs tell a lot about a mans thinking, and hence his intelligence.

[@seancorum]

I like Plantinga, but he's out of his depth here.

[@iamasmodai]

My imaginary friend can kick his imaginary friend's ass...

[@ObjectiveBob]

It's a shame that Plantinga's logical arguments are led by his dreadful Calvinist theology.

[@sauniz1]

You were not allowed not to believe then. If you didn't believe the church teaching, you best keep it to yourself. Most didn't have access to the Bible anyway. The Bible is an arbitrary collection of books written by men, canonised by men. There's nothing to the claim that it is "God's word". Ludicrous!

[@sauniz1]

Atleast I don't believe ancients epics to be the divine unerring word of God.

[@sauniz1]

Christian theism is by far the most idiotic explanation within all religions...God sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself so that mankind might be saved from his hate through his love.

[@mackdmara]

sauniz1 If you wronged me, there is a debt. If the cost for that debt is sacrifice, then to pay it you must make the sacrifice. Just saying you forgive it is not enough.

[@caruya]

That makes perfect sense. God demands only perfection and that's for our own sake, less would we unjust of him. So his Son, the second person the trinity, offered himself as the perfect sacrifice, that we can offer to the father, if we follow him. Nothing else of our own behalf suffices to God and this is to also keep us away from worshiping created things, that we think are a perfect, that's called idolatry, falling in love with things that are not God.

[@sauniz1]

He sounds intelligent...but he believes in the Bible :(

[@sauniz1]

Believing in baseless and absurd things like that is extremely stupid.

[@imasorryentertainer]

But this doesn’t mean that it is impossible for there to be special exceptions to any construct of reality. Quantum physics suggests that there are “irregularities” in the Newtonian scheme (if not a total upheaval of it, even though Newtonian physics still “works” in everyday life). This means that special Divine action is not totally out of the question.

[@imasorryentertainer]

I prefer “properly acceptable rules” to the term, “natural laws.” The reason is that the word “law” connotes things are not able to be abrogated. What reasons do we have to say that all naturally, empirically realized phenomena are the only things that have ever happened? It takes another, metaphysical argument to say that such a thing is the sum of reality.

[@imasorryentertainer]

But an “acceptable rule,” that is proper in a given situation, could be reliable and proper for everyday life rules, like most of them are, to be true. As such, we can rely upon them for the most part. But this is exactly what quantum physics purports. It suggests that Newtonian physics is mostly, almost always, in everyday life reliable, on the macro-level.