Reddit reviews Knowledge of God
We found 7 Reddit comments about Knowledge of God. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
Reddit reviews Knowledge of GodWe found 7 Reddit comments about Knowledge of God. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
As u/segFault11235 and others have pointed out, the Problem of Evil is to do with why evil things happen at all, given that an omni^3 God exists. Usually, the theist will give the vague explanation that 'God works in mysterious ways', which can probably be structured a little better by arguing that God is a utilitarian, and this evil we see will in some way be outweighed by the greater good that it will bring about.
Keeping this in mind, your maths would have to be altered so that g(t) + e(t) = Z, where Z is the net good/bad done in this world (not counting heaven). Now, the issue here, as I'm sure many other would agree, is that quite evidently g(t) isn't outweighing e(t). Or put in another way (as a counterargument to the theistic thought), e(t) doesn't seem to be bringing about this alleged greater good. That is to say, we should expect something like g(t) + e(t) + g(t + n), where the last function is a sort of potential good to come after time n (i.e. after the evil event has occurred). But if we look around us, e.g. tsunamis killing thousands of people, there doesn't seem to be this alleged residual good at all.
Maybe g(t + n) is a function that we're not directly aware of, since we don't understand God's ways, and thus the explanation that 'God works in mysterious ways'. But I'm of the thought that Occam's Razor should be applied here, and it's simply a case that g(t + n) doesn't exist i.e a tsunami will always inherently bring about net evil.
If you want further reading on this very topic, I suggest Knowledge of God. Here Plantinga and Tooley discuss the problem of evil, among other things. The book is quite dense (it was the recommended reading for my philosophy of religion unit) but it's an excellent read.
I know this isn't quite what you're asking for, but written debates are better for getting ideas across accurately and they are easier to study in detail.
https://www.amazon.com/God-between-Christian-Atheist-Counterpoint/dp/0195166000
https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-God-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0631193642/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467461061&sr=1-3&keywords=plantinga+debate
The former is easier to read, and the latter is more detailed, sophisticated, and thorough.
Sure, ok then.
You seem to not have any interest in looking at his writings to see for yourself. If you want to stick with what an online article says about him, be my guest, but there are actual peer-reviewed books and articles that treat him as a serious philosopher who changed the course of 20th century philosophy.
But you're right, a single SEP article is probably the definitive word...
In fact, and I just realized this, the author of the SEP, Michael Tooley, even co-wrote a book with Plantinga, in which they debate the existence of God. Knowledge of God.
The bottom line is that taking the SEP page as the bottom line is not exactly intellectually responsible if you claim to have taken a final position on the matter.
I don't know about a video, but there's a book they did together that I think is based on their debate.
https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-God-Alvin-Plantinga-dp-0631193642/dp/0631193642/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1569421605
>The "professional philosophers" who use incorrect definitions, on the other hand, I couldn't care less about.
First off, let me be clear again, you're the one using the incorrect definition. We can know that because we have rational minds that can understand rational arguments. And luckily, we have redditors that are very proficient at providing just the rational arguments we need to show that weak atheism is not intellectually viable.
>. If you could be so kind as to point out some of these "professional philosophers" - with sources - so I could dismiss anything they have to say on the matter, it would save me a lot of time.
First, I do so love the overconfidence. You've clearly proven my point there. You're completely unaware of even who these philosophers let alone what they argue, yet you're absolutely convinced of your ability to dismantle whatever it is they have to say.
The question is why would you want to? Clearly you're attached to the label atheist, and you're here so you at least like the impression of being intellectual, so why would you be interested in dismissing the arguments of professional atheists philosophers out of hand? Surely you'd want to at least see what they had to say. In fact, I'd say that you'd want to study and really understand their arguments. But maybe that's just me projecting what I want onto you.
Just in case, here are a few atheist philosophers of religion you ought to be reading up on.
>And just because "professional atheist philosophers" make arguments that gods don't exist, that doesn't change the definitions.
Read all of those links (remember to check your local library or your local university's library!) and you'll see that atheists who aren't a part of the cacophony of the unsophisticated group think do not argue for weak atheism. They do not simply argue against the theist's argument and, convinced they have sufficiently undermined that argument, declared themselves free of any belief. They believe there is probably no God and they argue there is probably no God.
You take pride in your belligerence, but it's a shame that belligerence comes from a position of ignorance. I worry about the status of atheism not because I think the theist arguments have won but because people like you are so completely ignorant of the topic that they can't even get straight what atheism even is, what arguments actually support it, and what obstacles there are for atheists to overcome. And yet you feel justified in spewing your nonsense in the most jackass way you can muster.
>For the most part, they don't--very few professional philosophers pay any attention to Plantinga's philosophy of religion.
Sure. they. don't...:eyeroll:
Ernest Sosa, Dan Dennett, Jerry Fodor, Michael Tooley...etc.
No. You didn't do your homework. I'll pay after you read these:
​
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~ekremer/resources/Flew%20The%20Presumption%20of%20Atheism.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-God-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0631193642