Dr. Craig contradiction.

[athrock]

The problem of evil was one attempt at this, but it has been refuted by Plantinga, and no one considers the intellectual problem of evil to be the knock-down argument that it was previously. The emotional problem of evil still seems to have some punch simply because hearts ARE obviously moved by the pain they experience and observe.

Maybe Plantinga considers it to be "refuted", but I certainly do not, and there are atheistic philosophers who do not agree with Plantinga on this.  It's a sidebar, yes, but I have listened to Plantinga (on the Closer to Truth series), and I find his arguments wanting, if not somewhat pathetic.

Pathetic?   That doesn't seem to be the consensus among professional philosophers.

However, to be fair, what can you tell me about the position of ATHEIST philosophers who have interacted with Plantiga's work on the Problem of Evil? 

Are there any websites, blogs or online articles that you recommend from one or more of the "big boys"?

[JuliaL]

Seems Plantiga wants to re-define omnipotent from "able to do anything," to "able to do anything that he is not limited in doing."

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plan...ll_defense

Plantinga argues that God, in spite of being omnipotent, has some limitations on his power.

I'll go with pathetic behind door number three, Bob.

[SteveII]

Seems Plantiga wants to re-define omnipotent from "able to do anything," to "able to do anything that he is not limited in doing."

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plan...ll_defense

Plantinga argues that God, in spite of being omnipotent, has some limitations on his power.

I'll go with pathetic behind door number three, Bob.

That comes up a lot here. Omnipotent does not mean what you think it means. Look at the bold from wikipedia...

The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1 A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]
2 A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
3 Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]
4 A deity can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.
5 A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
6 Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

[robvalue]

7. He can do just enough to be really, really cool but has enough restrictions so you can't punk him out or blame him for anything.

[Whateverist]

Now, I haven't spent any time on this, but perhaps Craig has had a personal experience of meeting the Risen Jesus and therefore knows (assuming he was not hallucinating, etc.) that Jesus is alive. Okay, fine. But what can Craig say of value to you about what is a non-verifiable, non-repeatable experience? Just "See for yourself?"

But what I wonder about from these reported meetings with Jesus is how the believer goes from the private, intra-psychic experience of being with .. something -> to verifying the alleged omni powers of God.  Presumably it is the immediacy of the meeting which seals the deal, but the content of what gets believed comes from elsewhere.  On account of the experience one becomes resolute in believing a number of things about the nature of God which was in no way conveyed by way of the experience.  Shouldn't that bother people?  What if they're having a genuine experience of some significance and immediately misattributing it out of some pre-existing bias?

Put God in the natural world as an intra-psychic phenomenon or else leave Him in the round file of the supernatural zone.  Your choice.

[robvalue]

Oh wait...

I've really done it now, huh.

This is a list of things I can do that God cannot. They are individually based on information different people have given me about God, or on my own observations. It's supposed to be the same being, right?

Feel free to add your own

1) I can demonstrate that I exist.

2) I am easily recognised as being me.

3) Everyone sees me the same way.

4) I can reply to any question put to me, by different people, with the same answer.

5) I can stand in front of people.

6) I can be near people without them dying instantly.

7) I can have an immediate and unambiguous effect upon reality, on request.

8) I can lie.

9) I can do "evil".

10) I can forgive people without first killing another version of myself.

11) I can provide useful information to people that they didn't already know.

12) I have a physical form.

13) I can create things without getting angry and punishing them because I dislike the way I've made them.

14) I can die.

15) I can communicate with people directly and clearly.

16) I can instantly clear up any misunderstandings about my intentions or desires.

17) I can learn.

18) I can take responsibility for my actions.

19) I can have a meaningful relationship with an atheist.

20) I can clearly exist without causing people to lose their free will.

[athrock]

Seems Plantiga wants to re-define omnipotent from "able to do anything," to "able to do anything that he is not limited in doing."

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plan...ll_defense

Plantinga argues that God, in spite of being omnipotent, has some limitations on his power.

I'll go with pathetic behind door number three, Bob.

And this is correct. Even God cannot do something that is contradictory such as make a square triangle or a married bachelor.

Therefore, Plantiga's precision is appropriate not merely an attempt to wiggle out of the difficulty.

[athrock]

Now, I haven't spent any time on this, but perhaps Craig has had a personal experience of meeting the Risen Jesus and therefore knows (assuming he was not hallucinating, etc.) that Jesus is alive. Okay, fine. But what can Craig say of value to you about what is a non-verifiable, non-repeatable experience? Just "See for yourself?"

But what I wonder about from these reported meetings with Jesus is how the believer goes from the private, intra-psychic experience of being with .. something -> to verifying the alleged omni powers of God.  Presumably it is the immediacy of the meeting which seals the deal, but the content of what gets believed comes from elsewhere.  On account of the experience one becomes resolute in believing a number of things about the nature of God which was in no way conveyed by way of the experience.  Shouldn't that bother people?  What if they're having a genuine experience of some significance and immediately misattributing it out of some pre-existing bias?

Put God in the natural world as an intra-psychic phenomenon or else leave Him in the round file of the supernatural zone.  Your choice.

W-

I would say this about that: If someone MEETS God, I don't think that it will be the case that he or she walks away from that encounter unmoved by the awesomeness of God. I mean, it won't be like striking up a casual conversation about the Mets with the vendor at the train station magazine stand, ya know?

But at the same time, your point is fair. As a result, I think that someone who has a genuine experience of God will still need to LEARN theology in order to understand what has been reasoned out and gathered from experiences like this from others over the course of several thousand years.

IOW, just because Jesus speaks to you in the shower, it does not mean that you will have anything intelligent to say about the hypostatic union or the filioque.

[athrock]

Oh wait...

I've really done it now, huh.

This is a list of things I can do that God cannot. They are individually based on information different people have given me about God, or on my own observations. It's supposed to be the same being, right?

Feel free to add your own

1) I can demonstrate that I exist.

2) I am easily recognised as being me.

3) Everyone sees me the same way.

4) I can reply to any question put to me, by different people, with the same answer.

5) I can stand in front of people.

6) I can be near people without them dying instantly.

7) I can have an immediate and unambiguous effect upon reality, on request.

8) I can lie.

9) I can do "evil".

10) I can forgive people without first killing another version of myself.

11) I can provide useful information to people that they didn't already know.

12) I have a physical form.

13) I can create things without getting angry and punishing them because I dislike the way I've made them.

14) I can die.

15) I can communicate with people directly and clearly.

16) I can instantly clear up any misunderstandings about my intentions or desires.

17) I can learn.

18) I can take responsibility for my actions.

19) I can have a meaningful relationship with an atheist.

20) I can clearly exist without causing people to lose their free will.

Well, rob, I could take this list apart point by point, but then Stimbo would accuse me of being condescending again. He likes that word.

[Jehanne]

Maybe Plantinga considers it to be "refuted", but I certainly do not, and there are atheistic philosophers who do not agree with Plantinga on this.  It's a sidebar, yes, but I have listened to Plantinga (on the Closer to Truth series), and I find his arguments wanting, if not somewhat pathetic.

Pathetic?   That doesn't seem to be the consensus among professional philosophers.

However, to be fair, what can you tell me about the position of ATHEIST philosophers who have interacted with Plantiga's work on the Problem of Evil? 

Are there any websites, blogs or online articles that you recommend from one or more of the "big boys"?

They're out there; I've listened to them being interviewed on the Closer to Truth series.  Besides, who gives a shit???  One need look no farther than natural evil, in particular, the sufferings of non-human animals over the course of hundreds of millions years.  Take this event, for instance, the impact that created Meteor Crater:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater

According to the article, the blast was estimated at 10 megatons.  Here's a web site that predicts the destruction from such a blast:

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Many thousands of animals were incinerated and thousands more suffered from fatal, third-degree burns only to suffer days and weeks of anguish, and then, death.  Where is your loving, all perfect god in all of this?!  Sorry, but he/she/it does not exist; I do not give a damn what Plantiga and/or Craig say; the latter is such an idiot that he, once upon a time, claimed that non-human animals were incapable of any type of suffering, that a perfect god would never allow such to occur.  I do not care to watch animals suffer; plenty of videos exist for that, but here is the exact opposite -- judge for yourself: