Monday, May 5, 2014


This argument has very little to do with Naturalism and everything to do with the insertion of God. Once analyzed it is very easy to see that Plantinga's argument is an argument from silence.

But the maneuver here is crafty, very subtle... it has the appearance (like all analytical theism) of being deep and profound. This is probably because of two factors:

1) The insinuation of an alternative to Naturalism by the nature of the question. In other words, it is assumed that one can escape Naturalism, or that one can choose between Naturalism and something else (supernaturalism). But how did supernaturalism become a viable alternative, let alone a legitimate premise?

and 2) The deceptive standard of truth as a criteria arbitrarily required for the justification of Naturalism. This antiquated standard totally ignores the pragmatic, inescapable, necessary authority of Evolution, necessary foundation of Naturalism. [In other words, even if there is a problem with standing in the clouds, if one is standing, then it doesn't matter if one can explain what one is standing on. The important fact is that one is standing.]

The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is a prime example that sophistry is alive and well. Plantinga is so bent on being a Christian (finding some channel to claim a rational right to his theism) that he is willing to take the most fantastic leap. ...Poor thinkers (those not used to thinking Socratically) will easily fall for this juvenile trap of semantics (we might even call it, a mirage of reason). Indeed, the more you tend to think like an analytical philosopher, the more susceptible you will be. 

The question, "Naturalism as opposed to what," does a very impressive thing. If the theist cannot get legitimately beyond Naturalism (without resorting to an argument from silence) THEN THE EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENT AGAINST NATURALISM, IS EQUALLY DEFEATED BY THE SAME LOGIC AS THE ARGUMENT ITSELF! In other words, there would be no way for Plantinga to know if his argument against Naturalism is true. (And we must remember, the criteria of truth here is itself a product of the one making the argument in the first place. How fitting that it now turns around to defeat him). So the argument is a defeater for the argument itself (unless one can provide an alternative to Naturalism, on some other ground than that of Naturalism; on some other ground than that of Evolution). So what is Plantinga really saying; is he not saying; the modernist criteria of truth is problematic, as a standard of justification, because it's too dogmatic?

Plantinga's criteria is first a straw-man, and then a child's joke; it is the futile problem of asking whether or not one is a brain in a vat... a rehash of solipsism. The refutation is thus: if you die in the Matrix, you still die! Let Plantinga figure that one out.
as always,
against theology,
Jersey Flight.            

Friday, May 2, 2014


You have all played the same game; you have all done the same thing; you try to pretend that the ideal over which you labor (an ideal deduced from nature) is actually synonymous with the God of your creed. You have ignored and denied the distinction, the necessary qualification, knowing full well, that if you admitted the conclusion of natural theology you would equally have to dispense with your God.