@jesus.and.whatnot: Just a personal reason for rejecting atheism #atheist #atheism #debate #christian #pholisophy

v :

Plantinga’s argument relies on a mistaken assumption about how natural selection works. He argues that if our minds evolved through natural selection, then they would only be aimed at survival, not at discovering truth. Therefore, our ability to understand abstract truths, like mathematics, would suggest that our minds were designed for truth by a higher intelligence. However, this assumes that every ability must have been directly selected for its current purpose. Evolution does not work this way. Natural selection does not have intentions or create traits for one specific function. It can produce abilities that go beyond their original survival advantage. A good example is the human hand. Our hands evolved because they helped us survive through tool use and interaction with our environment. But nobody argues that because evolution did not specifically select our hands for playing the piano, our ability to play the piano must come from an external designer. Piano playing is a consequence of broader abilities that evolved for other reasons. The same applies to reasoning. Our cognitive abilities likely evolved because they helped us survive: understanding our environment, predicting events, and cooperating with others. But once a complex reasoning system exists, it can be used for things that were not directly selected for, such as mathematics, philosophy, and abstract thinking. Therefore, Plantinga presents a false choice: our minds do not have to be either designed for truth or only useful for survival. Evolution can explain a third possibility: our minds evolved for survival, and our ability to discover truth emerged as a consequence of those evolved abilities.

Kartoffel129 :

What exactly does that prove??

ThrashTrash :

Jaydeshawnn :

Im genuinely not seeing what he’s cooking can someone explain

Hiromi Higuruma :

someone watching this in pure rage genuinely not finishing the entire video 🙏😭

krabmorski :

I think you forgot to make a point. You made a premise with no point.

x :

What do you define as truth, in the universe there is no fundamental definition of truth, each individual creates its own truth. Also the representation of “truth” exists only in our brain, if you look beyond urself, you see there are no sides, good or wrong, there is just is. In conclusion, we do not have an ultimate goal, we just are.

Mm&G :

I don’t know, I feel like certain aspects aren’t all applicable to this. In nature we can see that altruism exists which is when animals care for others of their same species (relatives) because it helps them with survival of their lineage, but when it comes to humans— we do selfless things for other people all the time, even if they’re not related to us or hold any specific benefit. As for the cliff example, most of us would understand that something that is dangerous to us, doesn’t make it bad. Such as a bear, most of us would avoid it because yes, we want to survive. However, we can acknowledge that just because it is dangerous to us and can cause us harm, it does not mean the bear is inherently bad.

Kagan :

AG :

I am Christian, and to me the argument you presented for Atheists makes sense in my opinion? I dont understand what you're criticizing or disarming in the argument you described. this isn't an attack or anything, im just genuinely wondering and I would appreciate if you could inform me more because I am still learning about being a Christian.

Jabibi :

psychophysical harmony favours theism significantly more than naturalism/atheism

Jake Gunnell :

This kind of feels like an explanation that is looking for an issue. I’m sure theres a different angle for epistemic absurdity that is worth discussing, but this one seems to me to be a false premise. The argument stems from the notion of “there’s a possibility that we could have evolved to automatically assign facts to things without prior evidence”. I don’t think any argument based on a hypothetical can really be called valid. This is the equivalent of saying “if there were a god, then it would have been entirely possible that it would rain hot dogs, but that doesn’t happen so there can’t be a god”. I know that’s an absurd example but it’s the same idea, I could conjure any idea that we don’t have evidence for and make an argument that that means there’s no god. Beyond that, we absolutely DO have reflexive reactions to seeing things. We experience the uncanny valley because our brains think that the robot or doll is a diseased person or a corpse. We crave sugar because our brains think that anything sweet is fruit, which at one point was one of the best sources of energy. Fight or flight is our brains perceiving the discomfort of emails or deadlines or whatever as confronting a predator. Hearing a sound behind you and automatically thinking it’s something bad. I know there are more but these are the ones that come to mind.

Jonas :

I don’t understand. What does this prove?

linus :

as an atheist, good video!

Majkl :

Mr_Kelly🇧🇧✝️ :

ive just always been like god is real but i only really like locked in on god relatively recently

^_^ :

Wait what that doesn’t make sense at all