tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9068953745226541087.post8204286977769203053..comments2023-06-08T05:02:22.650-07:00Comments on AnticitizenX: Evolutionary Absurdity Against NaturalismAnticitizenXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05041380277822761284noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9068953745226541087.post-86430588825156203232020-03-12T17:13:40.427-07:002020-03-12T17:13:40.427-07:00I meant to spell the word so in my grammar mistake...I meant to spell the word so in my grammar mistake in my previous comment, but Inspiringphilosophy would claim otherwise about me. :) Ah liars tend to theist apologetics tend to accuse people from things they didn't attend to do. Lol :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08813124126796143057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9068953745226541087.post-69288178555219012872020-03-12T17:09:49.314-07:002020-03-12T17:09:49.314-07:00Inspiring philosophy makes do many mistakes that h...Inspiring philosophy makes do many mistakes that his likely lied at least once in his video.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08813124126796143057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9068953745226541087.post-81918830218504496622017-02-10T10:48:02.018-08:002017-02-10T10:48:02.018-08:00This was amazing,the way you countered every annoy...This was amazing,the way you countered every annoying claim made by IP is very nice but I just have some future video suggestions:<br />Idealism+Quantum mechanics and materialism (use IP)<br />Elaborate more on the your moral philosophy or do a responding to objections to the moral argument video<br />Disprove god once and for all <br />And I don't really care about the style of the video and more about how frequently will you upload Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325980849484017479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9068953745226541087.post-80090459679958484912017-01-06T17:30:10.942-08:002017-01-06T17:30:10.942-08:00IP says "everything the brain does is for sur...IP says "everything the brain does is for survival" and "...would have come together via natural selection to aid us in surviving". No evolutionist would ever claim this, to demonstrate - <br /><br />If my parents have me and it's only about the survival of my parents or "their brains" that would mean my parents should destroy me because spending their resources on me would be harmful to their own survival. Only considering one's own survival - ensures the destruction of your genes. <br /><br />It's obvious that survival of an individual and survival of ones genes produces a consequential difference especially where ones genes exist in a place outside of ones own body in the example above. So survival of genes is what evolution really states? but I think even that is false, put correctly evolution claims - "Genes force organisms to respond to reality in a way as to prevent their own destruction". You say that's the same as gene survival but I think it might be false to show why -<br /><br />My parents share 100% of their genes with themselves but only 50% of their genes with me, Gene survival would still predict my parents prioritizing the survival of their genes over mine. Genetically speaking, myself being only 50% as important as each of my parents are to themselves predicts my parents should never spend their resources to disadvantage themselves 50% or less, where I am not benefited 50% or more. Of course this is difficult to model but where a parent donates an organ, or killed or even sacrifice their own safety or life for their child are obvious examples of where this view would be falsified.<br /><br />"Genes force organisms to respond to reality in a way as to prevent their own destruction" consequentially creates organisms that engage in behaviours that are promoting of survival, successful reproduction and generational expression of genetic information. I feel stating it as I have here it's a catch all it explains all the evidence.<br /><br />In consideration of this, the question is - can beliefs about reality, formulated from incoming information, created in the human brain, that in turn is created by genes that force organisms to respond to reality by engaging in behaviours that ENSURE the destruction of those same genes - be thought of as true or reliable? I don't think it is even conceivable that statement itself could be true. To have beliefs about reality that destroys that very thing you are using to make those same beliefs, yet those beliefs could hold any truth value whatsoever of that same reality is patently absurd. Imagine if it were true, you would have to believe falling on your face from the top of a 20 storey building is harmless but also be alive to tell about how it was harmless after your face is in your stomach and your bleeding out of what still has continuity with itself on the pavement.<br /><br />Plantinga if nothing else, has given us some excellent reasons to think our beliefs hold a considerable amount of truth value if we have evolved without the assistance of an immaterial mind force, because it was created by behaviours that correspond in many instances to things which must be true of the actual world - as best I can see. In fact it seems that if someone wanted our brains to know things for sure evolution may even be the very best way to do it! If you're arguing god created our brains for knowing things, evolution may actually be an excellent argument for god! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958255576368113886noreply@blogger.com