Big Bang Theory

[Kirbmarc]

Prove Planting's views on evolution are not properly grounded. Prove the chemical illusion that causally determined that idea in your 100% chemical mind is the correct idea?

Plantinga's ideas about "chemical illusions" forget a very important fact: we live an universe that is not limited by our brains. Indeed, the universe, through natural selection, created our brains. Therefore our mental processes can't be an illusion, at least not completely. Otherwise we would have already ceased to exist as a species.

Our brains are indeed hardwired to understand reality. However, they aren't a perfect tool: we only need enough understanding to survive, and nothing more. So if we are looking for a better understanding of reality we must always question the power of our brains (therefore we can't jump the steps from a concpet to a reality: this is another reason why the Ontological argument is wrong).

My views, or Plantinga's views, can't be judged on their own. They must be judged according to how well they explain evidence. There is a staggering amount of factual evidence for evolution through natural selection and in general for the natural processes that brought us; there is NO evidence for Plantinga's views expect from a purely theoretical speculation for an intelligent design, or for an irreducible complexity, or fine tuning (when evidence strongly suggests that it's life that fine-tuned to the universe).

Prove what correct chemical illusion of evolution 'ought' to have been delivered into Plantinga's mind by his 100% chemical mind.

Evolution doesn't "ought" to deliver anything into Plantinga's mind. It's easy to understand that many mental patterns that have no corrispondence in reality outside of our brains are a huge evolutionary disadvantage (people who believe that they can fly rarely live long enough to have offrsprings).

However, not all mental patterns that have no correspondance to reality are necessarily a lethal disadvantage; people who believe that they can fly while they sleep can still have offrisprings.

So, natural selection doesn't provide us with a thorough understanding of reality, because to survive and have children it's enough to understand part of it. We don't need to avoid, say, the tunnel effect to survive.

This is why if we want a thorough understanding of reality we need to question and correct our "chemical illusions" about how reality works according to new evidence. It happened with relativity, it happened with quantum mechanics and it had happened before with eliocentrism, or Newton's dinamics.

Explain your basis for knowing that the chemical delusion caused by chemicals in your mind are objectively correct chemicals delusions - delivering that objective basis required to claim Plantinga's chemicals delivered the wrong delusion to his mind?

There is no such thing as an "objectively correct" mental pattern. Mental pattern are correct (or not) relatively according to the data that we have. And according to the data we have, an intelligent creator is an unncessary hypothesis.

Prove your interpretation of the concept of cause is correct?

You're grasping at straws. The concept of cause that I use is the one that is used by modern science. It may be wrong, but if so all of modern science is also wrong.

Prove Plantinga's argument is an abuse of the concept of cause? Where is your objective evidence?

The evidence for my claim is what I already wrote. This concept of cause is valid only between phenomena. A supernatural entity, therefore, can't be a cause of a natural phenomenon.

Prove metaphysical entities are bound by your interpretation of the concept of cause.

They are if they interact with physical entities and cause physical events.

See. I can play your game.

Game over.

They exist as LAWS governing the behavior of matter. Do you seriously contend that the laws of gravity exist within matter, whether act upon matter?

Gravity doesn't exist without matter-energy. The theory of gravity is simply a description of how matter-energy behaves; this behavior depends on the features of matter-energy. The laws of nature aren't written in a boly book somewhere: they are simply how matter-energy interacts. New evidence could, in theory, disprove the theory of gravity. This wouldn't change the fact that matter-energy exists and has certain specific characteristics, it would simply mean that our description of how matter-energy works was inadequate.

You have absolutely no rational basis to claim supernatural intervention violates ceteris paribus Laws.

Supernatural intervention that causes natural effects in a natural world is impossible. Anything that interacts with matter-energy must be matter-energy. A superntural event could have occured only before matter-energy existed (i.e. before the Big Bang).