We all agree that evolution is a failure and has little to no philosophical merit right?

this

>A scientific discovery must have philosophical merit.
It's like saying that to gravity, holy fucking shit.

The fuck are you talking about? Social Darwinism?
If so, it does not replace Christianity.
Hopefully you stick with your work ethics, and never bring this bullshit around, not everyone believes in your ´God´

Don't play retarded.

We all know normies who majored in English and reddited through their 101 science courses believe that you are either Christian or Evolutionsist/fedora/atheist.

Even the goddamn Pope says evolution is a thing.

I mean goddamn, we can see evolution in what happened to natural bananas and tomatoes.

Also you are saying god is incapable of making man through evolution? I don't recall him ever telling someone in the Bible to take Genesis literally.

>no one addresses plantinga's arguments.

wew.

I di dn't you were a bunch of retarded reddit-tier meme intellectuals. THE OATMEAL WAS RITE ABOUT TESLA RIGHT GUIZ?

Evolution as a theory has been debunked countless times. There will always be evidence out there for a flood and creation if you're willing to look, just like how science can find things to the contrary.

You're realizing that this site has a culture. An inherent piece of this culture is that evolution as a theory is incorrect or very easily falsifiable. This is at ends with contemporary scientific theory which states that the evidence is insurmountable. It is unbelievably such a staple in the culture that you may wonder why. A few reasons

A) the wise opinion of the people here that God is real. This leads to a literal interpretation of Genesis for many and the Koran for some, which both state people are created. The Tao te Ching, which also believes in God, mentions flooding or a great cleansing or purging of evil. This can happen physically or spiritually

B) this is important: science has been historically proven wrong and Darwin's theory is still relatively young. This is important because for thousands of years, the very material understanding of the universe understood the Earth to be spherical yet the center of the universe. This was the view espoused by Archimedes and Ptolemy.

Evolution is actually very shaky.

Nigga you're dumb as fuck

Nigga you just got trolled hard.

Humanities was a mistake.

...

>expecting us to address his arguments when you didn't even post them

Yes, we're automatically familiar with your pet literally who.

Not trolling. Those are the main reasons why you'll find evolution being denied so prominently here.

Perhaps in Veeky Forums; however if you go to a scientific community they would most likely laugh at you.
The theory is not perfect, but one thing is certain: There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.

No, it's because retard theists keep coming here, not being interested in genuine discussion.

>can't google

N as naturalism, which he defined as "the idea that there is no such person as God or anything like God; we might think of it as high-octane atheism or perhaps atheism-plus."[12]
E as the belief that human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary theory
R as the proposition that our faculties are "reliable", where, roughly, a cognitive faculty is "reliable" if the great bulk of its deliverances are true. He specifically cited the example of a thermometer stuck at 72°F (22°C) placed in an environment which happened to be at 72°F as an example of something that is not "reliable" in this sense[9]
and suggested that the conditional probability of R given N and E, or P(R|N&E), is low or inscrutable

That's what I said in my post. You're not in the scientific community retard. Clearly the scientific community is flawed.

There is no finer discussion to be had than to the argument of God's existence. Kierkegaard's brand of existentialism is infinitely more layered and self-sustaining than Nietzsche's. And just think of Aquinas' Summa Theologica, that behemoth which philosophically argues for God's existence.

There's a reason most mathematicians believe in God. God is inherent in the system itself. Gödel formalized a proof for it.

So don't come on here saying theists don't want genuine discussion.

Plantinga's argument began with the observation that our beliefs can only have evolutionary consequences if they affect behaviour. To put this another way, natural selection does not directly select for true beliefs, but rather for advantageous behaviours. Plantinga distinguished the various theories of mind-body interaction into four jointly exhaustive categories:
epiphenomenalism, where behaviour is not caused by beliefs. "if this way of thinking is right, beliefs would be invisible to evolution" so P(R|N&E) would be low or inscrutable[20]
Semantic epiphenomenalism, where beliefs have a causative link to behaviour but not by virtue of their semantic content. Under this theory, a belief would be some form of long-term neuronal event.[21] However, on this view P(R|N&E) would be low because the semantic content of beliefs would be invisible to natural selection, and it is semantic content that determines truth-value.
Beliefs are causally efficacious with respect to behaviour, but maladaptive, in which case P(R|N&E) would be low, as R would be selected against.
Beliefs are causally efficacious with respect to behaviour and also adaptive, but they may still be false. Since behaviour is caused by both belief and desire, and desire can lead to false belief, natural selection would have no reason for selecting true but non-adaptive beliefs over false but adaptive beliefs. Thus P(R|N&E) in this case would also be low.[22] Plantinga pointed out that innumerable belief-desire pairs could account for a given behaviour; for example, that of a prehistoric hominid fleeing a tiger:

Thus, Plantinga argued, the probability that our minds are reliable under a conjunction of philosophical naturalism and naturalistic evolution is low or inscrutable. Therefore, to assert that naturalistic evolution is true also asserts that one has a low or unknown probability of being right. This, Plantinga argued, epistemically defeats the belief that naturalistic evolution is true and that ascribing truth to naturalism and evolution is internally dubious or inconsistent.

1. Our beliefs about the world can only have evolutionary consequences if they affect our behaviors (otherwise they are invisible to natural selection);
2. Natural selection favors advantageous behaviors, not directly the ability to form true beliefs;
3. Natural selection has no way to favor true non-adaptive beliefs over false but adaptive beliefs.

Therefore, (C1) the probability that our minds consistently deliver true beliefs if both philosophical naturalism and naturalistic evolution are true is low or inscrutable.

The theory of evolution and the common ancestor predate the so called "flood"
You didn´t debunk shit. You are just correlating shit m8.

It's incredible how you can use so many words yet say fucking nothing. Only in a theist's tiny, twisted little mind could that somehow be proof of God. and by the way, I wasn't arguing about God's existence. I am saying retards who deny evolution keep coming here, because they're retards. And surprise surprise, they all happen to be creatards as well. Fuck off.

The thing about the scientifici community, which I actually was a part of for 3 years, is that they are very niche and have almost no training (anymore) in philosophy.

Newton said that learning to do science without understanding history and philosophy of science was foolish.

Today though Dawkins and others have created a culture of stupidity and ignorance disguised as the intellectual elite.

Most scientists know a lot about a little. Someone be an expert on bubmble bee digging patterns (dawkins) bird shit (unidan from plebbit) bacteria RNA chemical pathways.

This doesn't make them an authority on anything. Yet most of today's normies treat scientists like infallible priests.

Its pathetic and a mark of how far we have fallen.

you're high school education is showing. Fuck off. Literally no one said creationism in this thread but you looking to emulate your hero bill Nye.

respond to the arguments or go name call on reddit.

and no i'm not the guy you are 'debating'.

What the hell are you talking about? There are no arguments.

saying 'WHAT AR EYOU TALKING ABOUT'

isn't an argument though you seem to think saying htat win's your debate.

Are arguments. probably one you don't understand so quit shitting up the thread.

One of his two pathetic arguments was literally "god is totally real guize but i dont know which one but that means evolution is most likely false". Like holy shit, read the thread

Plantinga doesn't argue against evolution, rather against the epistemological strength of naturalism given evolution, you goddamn retard.

EAAN in no way, shape or form undermines any aspect of evolutionary theory, Plantinga himself makes this point clear.

if you are completely unable to see the mind shattering stupidity of and how he completely fails to prove his point of evolution being shaky. None of those posts you mentioned have nothing to do with the one I was responding to anyway, you're going on about nothing.

thast what this whole thread is about dude.

though poorly worded its pretty clear that I was referring to naturalism / positivism/ nu-atheism whatever the fuck you want to call it having no merit (weak epistemological strength)

I agree with you entirely; however what´s your point? Your argument is completely unrelated to the discussion.

The problem of the pseudo-intellectuals has always been present.

epistemology is a sub-set of philosophy

your OP used the term 'philosophy', which encompasses epistemology and A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF

if you meant 'epistemology' you should have used the term 'epistemology', not 'philosophy'

i don't think this was accidental

i believe you are an equivocator and a dissembler

i believe you should be hung by your feet and stung with nettles until you die

The thread was very clearly about evolution from the start. Don't be a disingenuous faggot.

Naturalism.

>plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
>The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy.

What did he mean by this?

Of course because it refers to its wide and varied usage in philosophy and science. Just because it has no clear meaning doesnt mean it cannot be referred to at all, it obviously has reference to what the thread topic is which is Plantinga's argument against naturalism which is defined in . Here Plantinga would be using Naturalism to refer to those who reject the existence of God admitting only natural laws of which evolution would be a fundamental law.

What is Plantinga's answer to the pragmatists, which reject a Platonic notion of truth (one Plantinga presupposes) in favor of epistemic utility?

>which

whom, rather

> (You)
>
>

Also: we can accept the low probability of our 'belief' in evolution&naturalism being 'true', and we can justify that belief by indicating its empirical utility--that is, all the inquiry that is open to us by accepting it, and even the observable adaptive advantages it lends us.

What the fuck is with you retards and this board? Nobody in the physical sciences cares about what evolution means philosophically because guess fucking what? Scientific theories are not fucking philosophy!

Fuck off, fundie retard.

Post his arguments then, maybe somebody will care.

I dunno I haven't read much Plantinga, I think that will be something you would have to think through on your own.

The Neolithic "dynasty" didn't leave records and their did the Northe Cico people

People who got suckered into Ideology.

Nope. It's a scientific fact. You can bitch about it to your church/mosque etc. But, one thing remains that it is a scientific fact and it is true.

>the main reasons why you'll find evolution being denied so prominently here.
We've figured out that a single Southern Baptist guy in his 50s from Alabama who visits here every day and posts Answers in Genesis cartoons.

It's really your soul that's evolving.

>Evolution conflicts with doctrine
No. The day in a spiritual sense can last countless eons. This is true for other faiths as well, not just Christianity.

You're a physician. There's no excuse for being this retarded.

Same goes for you fucks.

If that's the case then how are you here to type your troll bait thread?

What do you mean by that, OP? It's established theory pretty much the whole world agrees on, except for a few new age 'tards and Muslims. Hardly a failure.

btw We all agree that Anime is a failure and has little to no philosophical merit, right?

Doctors have some of the most batshit insane opinions I have ever heard of from anywhere from politics to history.

If anything, their profession fuels their idiocy based on a mistaken assumption that somehow their profession makes anything they fucking say right.

>We
>all
>agree
>that
>evolution
>is
>a
>failure
>and
>has
>little
>to
>no
>philosophical
>merit
>right?

>Plantinga
>seems
>pretty
>much
>irrefutable
>on
>this.
Heh.

& HUMANITIES STRIKES AGAIN

Evolution is real, just look at how religions change, combine, syncretize and compete to adapt to cultural practices and survive through successive generations.

>be christian
>only thing that stops you from running around raping, killing, and cannibalizing people is the fear that your imaginary friend will punish you if you do so
>unironically claim to be a good person

>be christian
>actually do run around raping and killing
>still claim to be a good person

>>not one single mention of religio romana on this chart
reeeeee

>We all agree that evolution is a failure and has little to no philosophical merit right?
May as well claim that the popularity of salt and pepper in cooking has little to no philosophical merit.

>christian anime poster

Burn in hell you disgusting oaf

>I don't deny stuff like evolution's role in drug resistance for example

It's the same concept across the board you retard. Literally the only difference is that in drug resistance and many other features, prokaryotes (and some eukaryotes, actually) have a nifty advantage of natural cross-species genetic exchange rather than the mutations accumulating on their own in complex eukaryotes. This allows it to happen faster rather than over thousands or millions of years.

>bacteria can evolve
>but lifeforms larger than that can't

Is it autism?

>be redditer
>shit up threads on Veeky Forums
>still claim to be a smart person

that's a big claim and I don't see the big evidence to back up what I think you are suggesting.

says the youtube educated weed smoking faggot.

Lets be honest here, Christianity is a judaistic spook.

>Philosphical merit
Not an argument

Well this board is a failure.

>1 philosophy student going on about semantics and defining terms instead of discussing casually; astleast he seems to know what he's talking about
>bunch of redditors shitposting /r/atheism memes thinking it counts as intellectualism
>somebody asking to see plantingas arguments despite having google and them being posted in this thread
>1 person actually engaging the arguments and getting ignored
>high schoolers pretending philsophers and anyone with a non evolution doctorate is 'batshit' crazy

wew

>physician with a minor in philosophy posts Japanese cartoons he masturbates to in his free time, on Veeky Forums
Riiight.

I think you might be mentally retarded

>doesn't realize making the Genesis story, and the story of man's fall, into mere metaphors, undermines Jesus' claim to be the messiah liberating mankind from origional sin

>he visits Veeky Forums
>expects serious discussions

Might as well visit a German scat pornsite and whine about shit.

t.fails at metaphysics forever
Christ taught us A. How to have a good soul. B. How to approach spirituality. In his overcoming of death he offers it to those who trust in him and believe in him.

This as shit to do with genesis, which really exist to highlight the spiritual state of fallen man and was NEVER meant to be taken literal. In fact where comparisons can be made (the first humans in Buddhist cosmology, or the Greek golden age) similarities exist where it's important.

>no one addresses plantinga's arguments.

Because they're fucking DUMB

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism#Responses

>Scientific theories are not fucking philosophy!

Lol

Nice heresy bro

Have fun being taken seriously by any Christian denomination, except the Unitarians of course

>can't google
>giving homework assignments for a thread you expect other people to care about

You're a terrible salesman.

Ah. Well thanks for that, but it sounds like more pointless fucking word games meant to justify a theistic position only this time on the basis of "CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN" which is a startling rarity for a theist.

The problem of course being that attacking the opponent's believe on epistemological grounds doesn't make your own beliefs true and only manages to cast doubt on the absolute epistemological certainty of the idea, which isn't all that incredible, as Cartesian doubt will forever remain a thing.

What's so lol about that? There is no philosophy of evolutionary theory for the same reason why there isn't any philosophy of the theory of gravity. Scientific theories are about what and how, with the why being up to personal interpretation.

>There is no finer discussion to be had than to the argument of God's existence.

Art, virtue, existential meaning. All better.

>Kierkegaard's brand of existentialism is infinitely more layered and self-sustaining than Nietzsche's.

Call me crazy, but I really, very highly doubt that a Christian is going to have a balanced perspective on the merits of a guy's philosophy which can be summed up as "just give up on existential truth and believe in Jesus to escape the crushing weight of nihilism!" versus a guy who wrote an entire book lambasting Christianity's underpinnings while outright dismissing the notion of God.

>And just think of Aquinas' Summa Theologica, that behemoth which philosophically argues for God's existence.

Everything good about Aquinas came from Aristotle, everything new about Aquinas wasn't good. There's a reason he's largely ignored by philosophers outside of the church.

>There's a reason most mathematicians believe in God.

Got any proof of contemporary mathematicians believing in God? Also smart people tend to believe all kinds of odd shit; it isn't actually an indicator of truth for something to be believed by a smart person.

>Gödel formalized a proof for it.

Absolute trash.

>So don't come on here saying theists don't want genuine discussion.

Whether you can call it genuine or not is another matter entirely, but the fact remains that your discussion is just window dressing for you wanting us to quietly accept your doctrine no matter how patently absurd it is.

this

Which one is more likely

That a person's religion is the way, the truth, the light.

or

People are megalomaniac faggots who attempt to swallow the universe by constructing narratives that display their boorishness and complete ineptitude at appreciating the complexity of the world?

I'll take the second one because it's fucking obvious to anyone who's spent time around people.

>I'll take the second one because it's fucking obvious to anyone who's spent time around people.

Your misanthropy does not truth make.

Evolution is not a philosophical statement. It's an observation of the natural world.

It's not "misanthropy", it's observation about how humans actually act.

As opposed to how they portray themselves, their motives, and their actions.

"...does not truth make"

Okay asshole. We have a set of ininite possible propositional statements about all the possible beings who could appear as "God" to humans.

How do you pare it down so that your God is the only possibility left?

Your faggotry does not truth make.

>It's not "misanthropy", it's observation about how humans actually act.

It gets better after highschool.

>Your faggotry does not truth make.

I never claimed it does, just that you thinking that people are shit doesn't make your particular worldview more true. One of the big aims of philosophy and science throughout their history has been trying to overcome the epistemological shortcomings of humans.

>It gets better after highschool.

You little snot. I'm a fucking 30 year old veteran. I've observed how people actually act.

>One of the big aims of philosophy and science throughout their history has been trying to overcome the epistemological shortcomings of humans.

And tell me, how do you pare down the set of infinity?

As soon as you "grab" one explanation of "God", there are an infinite number of other plausible explanations. Not limited to propositions about "God" but containing that infinity of propositions regarding it.

Once again, how do you pare down infinity? Or are you just going to a faggot and insist that your feels is enough to pare down infinity?

It's assuming things based on observation.

It's a philosophy.

>And tell me, how do you pare down the set of infinity?
You necessarily do, because infinity doesn't exist even in the contemporary scientific understanding of the universe you tard. The universe is finite however you look at it, time to start looking at it through an objective lens.

You're fucking retarded. There are an infinite number of possible propositions.

It has nothing to do with "scientific understanding of the universe" and more to do with the recursive and syntactical parts of language.

"The universe is finite"

You literally don't know that. Stop bullshitting.

"Buh-buh-my latest scientific understanding"

Latest scientific understanding has changed constantly in the past one hundred and fifty years. And you're invoking something which you don't understand.

this man speak truth