Solid material brother! Love how you showed how epistemological approaches find their unity and meaning within the Christian worldview. These videos need more views I pray the Lord continues to grow your influential reach 🙏
I think Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism is compelling. It makes sense that if evolution is true, then our brains developed along the lines of survival, not truth-seeking. In this view, we wouldn't be able to trust the conclusions of our own brains because they're not primarily concerned with truth-seeking. One objection I have heard to this argument is that we must have evolved some truth-seeking abilities in order to survive. In other words, survival required an ability to truthfully interpret reality as a means of the continuation of our species. My rebuttal would be that we definitely have the ability to form beliefs about the world that help us survive, but nothing follows as to the veracity of that belief. Beliefs that are untrue can still be helpful to survival. For example, having an inflated sense of confidence in one's own ability can actually help you succeed in life. You might be bad at something, but believing falsely that you're actually good at it could prove to be immensely helpful to your survival. What do you think?
It's good argument but I think the argument needs some work adjusting. I think it's true that generally at least long term speaking what is true is beneficial for survival but short term speaking falsehoods can aid survival. I think the argument shouldn't be abused to say we can't have no confidence in our reasoning, but I think it's more accurate to say that not all of our beliefs may be correct though they may seem correct. In short the evolutionary argument may not destroy rationality entirely but opens holes in the system as to whether all our beliefs are true. Ofc we also can't know which of these beliefs are the case either. Good argument don't overstretch it and it should place a small dent in the naturalist worldview.
I typed this out before noting that the thread was 4 y.o. Still, I will post it. +++++ I a philosophical sense, no. I don't think we can be 100% certain about anything. This is because, at the end of the day, no matter how certain I am, as a fallible human, I can always be wrong. Even when I stomp my feet and insist that I cannot be wrong, I remain a fallible human nevertheless. In my claims to knowledge, I can only go back so far, before I have to rely on presuppositions about the nature of reality. And even when I make those presuppositions, I remain, in the end, a fallible human being who could be wrong. Should you folk insist at some point that you are 100% correct because - "The bible is clear and infallible and inerrant", - you yourselves remain fallible humans who could be wrong. ^^ If you insist that there is no way you can be wrong on that point, then how many other times a day do you make claims about which there is no chance you can be wrong? How can other people tell when you have made such a claim? There are claims I will make. If you disagree with me then make your arguments and present your evidence. I will make my argument and present my evidence. ^^ I think that is about the best we can realistically do. (And BTW, I think it funny in a sense, when two Christians accuse each other of heresy and they use "God's, clear, infallible and inerrant" guide, the bible, to "prove" each other wrong. I think some of you fellows need to show a bit of humility as opposed to preaching to the world about it.)
@@TheThinkInstitute Of course. I am merely highlighting that as a possibility. (I mean, if I can be wrong about one or two things, then why not three or four things? And if I can be wrong about three or four things then ...). A problem is, that to behave as if that were actually true, then I could never achieve anything because I would be always running around trying to either find the error or trying to fix the error. A question about you +++++++++++++++++ Is their any chance, any chance at all that one or all of your core Christian beliefs could be wrong?
Hello brother, this video just blessed my socks off! May the Lord bless you increasingly according to His will!
Solid material brother! Love how you showed how epistemological approaches find their unity and meaning within the Christian worldview. These videos need more views I pray the Lord continues to grow your influential reach 🙏
Thanks, Anthony. Glad you found it helpful.
Fantastic thank you for this.... It's helping me learn how to learn.. does that make sense? It's true.
That is awesome to hear! Praise the Lord!
"A Rock cannot be true"
Me: Well, that feels like a personal attack.
Well there's only one Rock who is always true, of course.
I think Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism is compelling. It makes sense that if evolution is true, then our brains developed along the lines of survival, not truth-seeking. In this view, we wouldn't be able to trust the conclusions of our own brains because they're not primarily concerned with truth-seeking. One objection I have heard to this argument is that we must have evolved some truth-seeking abilities in order to survive. In other words, survival required an ability to truthfully interpret reality as a means of the continuation of our species. My rebuttal would be that we definitely have the ability to form beliefs about the world that help us survive, but nothing follows as to the veracity of that belief. Beliefs that are untrue can still be helpful to survival. For example, having an inflated sense of confidence in one's own ability can actually help you succeed in life. You might be bad at something, but believing falsely that you're actually good at it could prove to be immensely helpful to your survival. What do you think?
It's good argument but I think the argument needs some work adjusting. I think it's true that generally at least long term speaking what is true is beneficial for survival but short term speaking falsehoods can aid survival. I think the argument shouldn't be abused to say we can't have no confidence in our reasoning, but I think it's more accurate to say that not all of our beliefs may be correct though they may seem correct. In short the evolutionary argument may not destroy rationality entirely but opens holes in the system as to whether all our beliefs are true. Ofc we also can't know which of these beliefs are the case either.
Good argument don't overstretch it and it should place a small dent in the naturalist worldview.
I typed this out before noting that the thread was 4 y.o. Still, I will post it.
+++++
I a philosophical sense, no. I don't think we can be 100% certain about anything. This is because, at the end of the day, no matter how certain I am, as a fallible human, I can always be wrong. Even when I stomp my feet and insist that I cannot be wrong, I remain a fallible human nevertheless. In my claims to knowledge, I can only go back so far, before I have to rely on presuppositions about the nature of reality. And even when I make those presuppositions, I remain, in the end, a fallible human being who could be wrong.
Should you folk insist at some point that you are 100% correct because - "The bible is clear and infallible and inerrant", - you yourselves remain fallible humans who could be wrong.
^^ If you insist that there is no way you can be wrong on that point, then how many other times a day do you make claims about which there is no chance you can be wrong? How can other people tell when you have made such a claim?
There are claims I will make. If you disagree with me then make your arguments and present your evidence. I will make my argument and present my evidence.
^^ I think that is about the best we can realistically do. (And BTW, I think it funny in a sense, when two Christians accuse each other of heresy and they use "God's, clear, infallible and inerrant" guide, the bible, to "prove" each other wrong. I think some of you fellows need to show a bit of humility as opposed to preaching to the world about it.)
@@rolandwatts3218 could you be wrong about your idea that you could be wrong about everything you believe?
@@TheThinkInstitute
Of course. I am merely highlighting that as a possibility. (I mean, if I can be wrong about one or two things, then why not three or four things? And if I can be wrong about three or four things then ...). A problem is, that to behave as if that were actually true, then I could never achieve anything because I would be always running around trying to either find the error or trying to fix the error.
A question about you
+++++++++++++++++
Is their any chance, any chance at all that one or all of your core Christian beliefs could be wrong?