(December 24, 2015 at 10:44 am)ChadWooters Wrote:(December 23, 2015 at 12:58 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Chad, the problem with Plantinga's ontology is that it tries to use a non-sequitor mathematical principle of probability.If, as you say, he is using it mathematically then I suppose you are right. Maybe there is a distinction being made of which I am ignorant. To me at least, Plantinga seems to be using 'probable' in a way similar to previous uses of the word 'possible'. I must admit that my focus on Scholastic nomenclature sometimes gets in the way of understand modern uses of the same or similar terms.
Plantinga's arguments don't prove a damned thing, Christianity is not the only religion with it's apologists. This is yet another reason I hate the word "philosophy", it is a loaded word it is nothing more than something religious people use to make word salad sound lagit.
O Crappy of Farts News likes to claim that "Catholic" is not a religion but a "philosophy" and so do many Buddhists.
It is all crap to me. There was no written religion 200,000 years ago much less 4 billion years ago. Dinosaurs didn't pray to a dead man on a stick, bacteria didn't build mosques and cockroaches didn't build fat statues to pray to. Humans make up religions but religion itself was never a requirement for evolution to occur. Religion is merely an excuse to claim to be the gatekeeper on knowledge, and only one tool that is best suited to gain knowledge is scientific method.
Elaborate crap to defend a old book of myth only means one has a vivid imagination.
