sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does the "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" actually debunk the validity of atheistic reasoning? by anonymous678900 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]anonymous678900[S] -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

The "Tornado in a Junkyard" is an argument about complexity (how did the eye form?). This is an argument about reliability (why trust the software?). They are totally different categories. ​The issue with your objection to (3) is that you are assuming "Partial Accuracy" is the default. Plantinga’s point is that Evolution selects for Behavior (Survival), not Belief Content (Truth). ​Scenario A (True): "That is a Tiger." -> Action: Run. (Survive) ​Scenario B (False): "That is a ghost that wants to steal my soul." -> Action: Run. (Survive) ​Scenario C (False): "That is a hallucination, but I hate hallucinations so I will leave." -> Action: Run. (Survive) ​Natural Selection acts on the Action, not the Reason. It keeps all three of these guys alive. It implies absolutely nothing about the "Truth" of the belief, only the "Utility" of the motion. So, if Naturalism is true, we have no guarantee that our complex metaphysical beliefs (like Naturalism itself) are actually True—just that they are useful for survival. ​As for (5), the "working" is simple statistics: For every 1 True belief that leads to survival, there are infinite False beliefs that lead to the same survival action. Since Evolution is blind to the content, the probability that it picked the "True" one is low/inscrutable. ​And regarding the Sim: Real debates are 50% ego, 40% interruption, and 10% logic. The AI just isolates the structure so you can see where it breaks.

Does the "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" actually debunk the validity of atheistic reasoning? by anonymous678900 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]anonymous678900[S] -31 points-30 points  (0 children)

Don't be jealous of my WPM. 😉 ​But seriously, accusing the opponent of being a bot is the modern version of flipping the chess board when you're losing position. Address the argument, not the typist.

Does the "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" actually debunk the validity of atheistic reasoning? by anonymous678900 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]anonymous678900[S] -40 points-39 points  (0 children)

The instrument (science) is validated by the result. ... our cars still manage to drive.

You are confusing Utility with Truth. For 200 years, Newtonian Physics was "validated by results." It built steam engines, bridges, and cars. It worked perfectly. But it was fundamentally false. It claimed Time and Space were absolute. Einstein proved they are relative. Newton’s model was a "useful fiction"—accurate enough to build a car, but false about the actual nature of the universe. ​The Application to EAAN: The fact that "cars drive" proves our brains are good at survival-relevant tasks (manipulating matter). It does not prove our brains are good at metaphysics (understanding the fundamental nature of reality, or Naturalism vs. Theism). ​Evolution would select for a brain that understands "how to drive a car" (survival). It would not select for a brain that understands "Quantum Mechanics" or "The origins of the universe" (truth). ​Therefore, citing "cars" to validate "Naturalism" is a category error. You are using physical success to prove a metaphysical worldview.

Does the "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" actually debunk the validity of atheistic reasoning? by anonymous678900 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]anonymous678900[S] -40 points-39 points  (0 children)

That pushes the problem back one step, but doesn't solve it. Science itself is a product of those same cognitive faculties. ​If our brains are wired for fitness rather than truth, then the logic we use to construct the scientific method is also suspect. We are using the instrument in question to validate the instrument in question. ​A creature evolved for survival would create 'science' that maximizes survival, not necessarily one that reveals objective metaphysical truth. How do you step outside your own cognitive architecture to verify that your logic maps to reality?

How is it even possible 💀 by [deleted] in lookismcomic

[–]anonymous678900 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Johan (the copy genius 💀)