The frogs are just an example. He is making a simple case to give you the idea how this argument works. But it is supposed to give us proof that if Naturalism+Evolution were (in a possible world) true then all of our beliefs would be untruth because Evolution is a blind unintelligent process. And naturalism doesnt guarantee a rationality either.
Not necessarily. I suspect that brains that represent reality with a certain level of fidelity are less complex than brains that represent wrong beliefs that still need to be mutually consistent in order to guarantee survival. Less complex means also requiring less energy and therefore providing a survival advantage. After all, they just need to represent alrady available information from the environment instead of complex isomorphisms from scratch and at the same time. And this is exactly what we should expect if naturalism was true.
Its all hogwash. It doesnt matter that i appear to you to be wrong and unscientific in my worldview because there is no right or wrong if the argument is true. Any outlook, including a flat earth, could be true and all of us who believe the earth is round and goes around the sun are just deluded by our cognitive faculties.
There is no right or wrong if the argument is true? if the argument is true, then at least the argument is true. Tautologically. Or are you telling us that if the argument is true than we cannot say if it is true or not?
Yet, you still fail to explain why we have a natural intuition for the things which are closer to our survival needs, and not for all the other facets of reality. Why do our natural mechanisms fail so misarably when we are confronted with what goes beyond our middle sized world?
All of this is irrelevant. If you havent read all of those supposed 'facts' you wouldnt even think about it. And what benefit do you draw from it anyway? Some sort of intellectual superiority
?
Nope. Just more training in science than you, apparently. That does not have anything to do with intellectual superiority.
Again if you think Alvin Plantingas argument is true, then it is not possible for you to rely on your ability to understand that we function mostly, only knowing minimal scientific facts. Infact you cant rely on your ability to understand realty at all. There could be Gods all around you dancing but you wouldnt realize it. Just as the majority of people dont realize the same 'scientific facts' you have been mentioning. We are all ignorant of the world around us and only believe what we want to believe.
Yes, and that is why the only arbiter is to rely on actual experimentation to confirm our beliefs. At least fr what concern the reality that surrounds us. All you need to do is to drop two objects with different weights from a tower to realize that Aristoteles brain was the product of evolution by natural selection. And this is basic classical mechanics. Imagine the rest. Nobody with a sane mind would believe quantum mechanics if not for the feedbacks we get from experiments.
Like Dick Feynman would say, if I am not misquoting: if you think you understood quantum mechanics then you did not understand it. What more glorious example would you need as evidence that our brans are simply not equipped to fully understand fundamental reality?
Since i no longer believe in free-will myself i can only tell you that you are destined to learn what you learn about the world. As long as you can function it, which is a 'miracle' of in itself, you dont need anything else. Im also not saying that one should give up learning by this but that merely you will reject or agree only because youre destined to do it. Just as i am destined to write this response(as strange as it may sound).
If you believe that everything has a cause, then it is obvious that (libertarian) free will must be wrong to you.
But of course your argument has two cutting edges. How do you know that your belief in God X has not been pre-destined by God Y, or whatever else?
Ciao
- viole
