Alvin Plantinga - Arguments about God?

We like arguments about God. Only by disputations and debate may truths about God emerge. Adversarial proceedings about God, as if in a court of law, can provide insights.

[Funnybudgie]

4:10 does he say "I would off be among them"? So he doesn't support moral argument?

[jordanbickett]

His dismissal there at the end gave me a chuckle because for me the qualitative things like taste and vision is much better explained by God than consciousness just emerging out of matter from nowhere.

[francoaguistinemexicano]

i can't understand one thing. my philosophy prof will fucked me up real hard in my next exam. :(

[KonradZielinski]

* The idea that there is one correct way to group objects into sets is nonsense. Indeed we know that in many areas how you happen to construct your hierarchy of sets depends entirely on what language or languages you speak.
* And no there are no moral absolutes in the strict sense. In order to agree on what is the right thing to do, you must first agree on a goal. People with different goals end up with different morals. That said we are all humans, who are social animals and come with some goals hard wired into our brains, which lead us to head in the same basic direction on many questions.
* I don't have the time here to explain why Plantinga is wrong about proper function, but he is wrong.
* Beauty again is entirely subjective. Plantinga may find Mozart's music beautiful, others may find it dull or boring. Again ideas of beauty are very much defined by what culture you happened to grow up in.

[mazharcelaleddinkeskinocak]

You can make an argument about function in HUMAN terms, in the same way that we derive MEANING from words. We need God to explain function only if we are looking for an unchanging, stable and eternal meaning of function. The function of a thing is discovered in discourse. In other words, if one upholds that we (humans) are the giver of functions, which is historically contingent, then I can't see how God is at all necessary to use the word "function" in a meaningful way. Evolution has a function because this is how we comprehend it as humans. Function is only relevant in the context of human cognition, there is no function of evolution without us bracketing it as such.

[groverfarterius]

I totally believe in God, but do agree with him when he mentioned the problem of evil. On the other hand, we can never understand God’s thinking, and, I think, it’s pointless to try. I also think that the fine tuning of the universe, especially the knife’s edge fine tuning of the dark energy, is strong scientific evidence of God.

[JohnDoe-gkok]

His first argument is a version of the TAG argument.

[sshhaaddooww]

I can understand almost any believer but I don't share every belief. Belief is not a matter of common sense. There no common sense about religious belief. It's common sense that this is a fact. The field of common sense is science.

[TonySarjeant]

Platinga's, often repeated phrase, is on the lines of 'we don't know why God acts in the way he does'. Nevertheless, most believers have no problem ascertaining God's mind when it suits them. Coincidentally, God's views are identical to those of the believer expressing the views.

[stevenhoyt]

I'm not sure why P thinks we can't say what it is for a human being to function properly. We can't say exactly what it is for something to be alive but we don't have any problems pronouncing people dead, or thinking abnormally; the DSM seems to be very specific or at least sufficient enough at having in mind what normal functioning humans are like and abnormally functioning ones.

Knowledge as the right to be sure also seems to be a better definition at least descriptively.

P hints at his evolutionarily argument ... I think his peers have certainly shown it has some serious issues.

There are, it seems to me, no arguments to make for or against the existence of God that are one, better than the other ultimately.

The fact of the matter is, you either believe or you don't and you can only bias yourself to change your mind or have it changed by experience.

The key is always being honest and letting our mind be open so that they can get closer to the truth.

[klowen]

While his arguments are interesting, it's also worth noting that Plantinga is a self-described _"Christian_ Philosopher", and if we peruse any of his other convos, many available here on YouTube, it's obvious that he has strong 'opinions', and he's definitely on a 'mission' (aka, "I _Want_ to Believe!"}.

[javierborda]

What’s the argument for no need for arguments? I agree, but I’m curious, because I don’t have an argument ;-)

[FLaDave]

If you make assertions then you can talk about evidence between assertions and then combine circular logic with a false equivalency. It sounds rather impressive

[iboconobi]

So if there is a designer, engineer..God, why does he allow us to die and hurt like we do, as beautiful as life is one thing is certain, sooner or later we all suffer and all die. Why? If God exists he has all power why not just save us right now or even further back. Look how much suffering our species has gone through, look how beautiful and perfect even the animals are that live among us that have to kill one another to live. Why ..why would a loving God create that to be killed and die? I don't get it. : (

[OnePointSix]

Platinga's opinions on God are so irritatingly biased. There is no way he could have arrived at a philosophical conclusion for the existence of God had he not been operating on that presupposition. In other words he is working from a conclusion toward an explanation.

[walterdaems]

If god existed there would be no need to prove his existence

[furbs]

I love this channel, one of my favourites but for the love of Hitch, this was a load of bollox

[BradHolkesvig]

These fools have never heard the Voice of God. That's why they talk about arguments. If they knew they both came from the Voice of God, they wouldn't be arguing at all. They would be sharing their thoughts and getting excited about the future.

[GaudioWind]

These arguments are totally empty. They are all on the same level of those to point that sorcery is real.

[OnePointSix]

Plantinga says "clearly there is" such a thing as moral obligation. Where's Plantinga's good evidence? The existence of the diverse range of morality seen the world and the fact it has been forever changing throughout time is clear evidence against his claim. For example, explain the moral obligation to sacrifice animals, or humans (as in the Christian moral scope).