(March 7, 2017 at 2:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: Naturalism is more limiting because of two things: 1) it cannot explain the existence of logic, mathematics, morality abstract objects, consciousness etc.
Flatly wrong.
(March 7, 2017 at 2:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2) rejects supernatural possibilities/events/causes/persons (which is a philosophical position, not a scientific one).
Also wrong.
Supernatural events do not happen. This is a scientific conclusion.
(March 7, 2017 at 2:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: Regarding the topic of sources of truth we have been discussing: You may be familiar with Alvin Plantinga. He formulated the following argument that points out, not that naturalism is false, but that we cannot sensibly believe both naturalism and the scientific theory of evolution.
Letting R be the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable, N the proposition that there is no such person as God or anything like Him (naturalism), and E the proposition that we and our cognitive faculties have come to be in the way proposed by the contemporary scientific theory of evolution, Plantinga formulates the argument as follows:
1. Pr (R|N&E) is low.
Unjustified, irrelevant anyway.
(March 7, 2017 at 2:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2. Anyone who accepts (believes) N&E and sees that Pr (R|N&E) is low has a defeater for R.
Non sequitur.
Not particularly convincing.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
