IMO John Duns Scotus is the GOAT of Christian philosophy. He has a level of analytical precision equal to that of Plantinga, but he wrote hundreds of years earlier, in the midst of the Middle Ages. Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, and Kierkegaard are other historical greats. Not only are they all in the top 10 most influential philosophers in history, but they all lived vivid spiritual lives.

@Stupidityindex

Жыл бұрын

Theologians prove doctorates are granted based on nothing whatsoever. Christians simply insist we follow their directions from fantasyland, adopt their vocabulary, because Christians have zero quality-control. Imperial Rome made this cult so every Alex Jones in the country knows enough to put Jesus-lingo in the sales-pitch. There is always peril when pointing out reality to Christians. Christians simply insist we follow their directions from fantasyland, adopt their vocabulary, because Christians have zero quality-control. Imperial Rome made this cult so every Alex Jones in the country knows enough to put Jesus-lingo in the sales-pitch. Christians boast their lack of quality-control. The same god we know for a perfect record of doing nothing, is their servant for an unmeasurable number of prayers. Why would anyone confess Jesus Christ as Lord, when voting is a quality-control? Republicans rig the voting districts. The SCOTUS writes of its own stench. Christians are avoided like the old woman with too many cats, suggesting we travel best with one foot in fantasyland, based on butchered context in Roman propaganda. Who do you think licensed temples, controlled publication, crucified when imperial Rome created Christians? Why do you think every Alex Jones in the country, uses Jesus-lingo in the sales-pitch? The problem is; We depend on the fiction of government being better than no government, actually working, with voting as a quality-control. Christians boast having no quality-control. The same god we know for a perfect record of doing nothing, is their servant for an unmeasurable number of prayers. The only difference between a Republican & Democrat is how fast the knee hits the floor when a donor walks in the room. There is no plan, not for greenhouse gases, as long as energy is needed to keep the show on the road. Christians demand ownership of the narrative: We are all gods, children of the highest god. The ultimate vanity is declared, as they make a scene in the temple. Christians are the wolves in sheep's clothing, weighing in on whatnot as if Earth had gravity-free zones, would-be dictators suggesting we must all travel together, as if we all prefer leadership with one foot in fantasyland. We know a tree by the fruit. We know a man by his works. We thank God secular law & order finally ended the witch-killings & inquisitions. Jesus Christ says a wicked generation seeks signs, then the Christians: Self-authorized experts on deity-stuff, dictate what is sacred, holy scripture, having magic in every chapter.

Alvin Plantinga : Christian theism is... inevitable (Snap his fingers )

This is very timely. I’m nearly finished with Plantinga’s book on Knowledge and Christian Belief. I’m especially impressed with his argument that a belief can only be warranted if it is produced by a cognitive system aimed at truth, which can be accounted for in the theistic worldview, but it cannot be accounted for on an atheistic/naturalistic model of the world.

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

Why are you impressed by that? It’s obvious nonsense.

@Semperparatus6854

Жыл бұрын

​@@davethebrahman9870 hi, professor Dave😂😂😂😂

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

@@Semperparatus6854 Hey, Dopey.

@Semperparatus6854

Жыл бұрын

@@davethebrahman9870 just professor dave being dave.... You don't disappoint shame🤣🤣🤣

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

@@Semperparatus6854 Great post, I can’t wait for the English language version.

Plantiga is important but Aquinas was the best. Strongest support of this, is that some of the greatest apologists of modern times (Norman Geisler, Rob Koons, Peter Kreeft, and Alexander Pruss) are/were Thomists. I don't think people 100 years from now will be identifying as Plantigas but there will be ones identifying as Thomists

Honestly my top 5 Christian philosophers are: Swinburne Plantinga Craig Lennox Rasmussen EDIT: I mean these are my top 5 in regards to helping me when I questioned my faith.

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

That’s quite a confession.

@ELECTRICBIGE

Жыл бұрын

Wow. You need to read some older folks, friend. Christian philosophy didn’t begin in the 20th century

@thatonegamer9547

Жыл бұрын

@@ELECTRICBIGE I'm aware, Just meant to say these are the ones who helped me when I questioned my faith.

@szilveszterforgo8776

Жыл бұрын

​@@thatonegamer9547 You should read Kierkegaard too, especially if you're a protestant.

@thatonegamer9547

Жыл бұрын

@@szilveszterforgo8776 I’m non denominational. Personally I see no reason to go towards a denomination if we all follow Christ in the end of the day.

No! It’s definitely Aquinas. No doubt about that. In modern times, I would favor Ed Feser.

GK Chesterton was the greatest in my opinion. I think that Chesterton had an intellect that was unmatched.

Great video!

Dr. Welty is very inspirational!

Greg Welty is great. You should really consider getting him on (if you can) to talk about theistic conceptual realism

No, It's undoubtedly St. Thomas Aquinas.

@robertoferreira7540

2 ай бұрын

No

He’s my great uncle! Great guy

Greg Welty is great! His work on abstract objects/divine conceptualism is super helpful as well. Maybe he and WLC could debate?

Plantinga's influence in the 20th century is out of question. There are monumental theses about his importance and revival of good philosophy at academy. But to consider him the GOAT given that we are speaking of comparaison with St Agustine, St Thomas Aquinas and many many others... it is a bit controversial (still interesting to discuss)

I never heard of that person. I like St Augustine a lot.

"Of all time" no. There were many great Christian philosophers in the past as well in the present moment.

Plantinga's very good. But what makes a philosopher "great?" I propose the following standard: - wherever previous philosophers were wrong, they should offer corrections; - wherever previous philosophers were unclear, they should offer clarifications; - wherever previous philosophers were correct, they should offer concurrence and elaborations; - the combination of these corrections, clarifications, and elaborations should open up new realms of insight; and, - they should have additional insights, not necessarily extending from anyone else's work, which time proves to be correct, and which opens up whole new realms of elaboration by successors; The standard proposed above unavoidably means that a philosopher's greatness is relative _to the time in which he is working,_ since so much of the weight of his "score" rests on working from what is already known, without screwing it up! Because Plantinga has the benefit of predecessors like Aquinas, and has rarely made errors whereby he reverses the correctness of his predecessors, I judge him very good. But I am not convinced that his elaborations either drastically extend upon his predecessors, or locate whole new territories which his own successors will develop into schools.

He's in the top three for sure.

Most people’s opinions of Dr Plantinga are based on their lack of experience with Dr Plantinga . dr Craig , has very high opinion of him and says we’re lucky to live in time to have someone like him , so he’s not your average philosopher. He’s thoughtful, he’s down to earth Sense of humor. . Everyone s entitled to their opinion, God bless .

Who?

Nah. Aquinas has that title

Kinda thought Alvin would be the guest

I vote Irenaeus

Interesting that nobody thinks Jesus rates on this list.

@shemashekarshalom539

Жыл бұрын

I know right? I mean, as far as the OT containing belief in Resurrection, Jesus surely produced the most convincing exegetical case that Christians regularly consider the final word on the matter: “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” - Matthew 22:31-32 Surely the incarnate God is the greatest thinker.

In my 64 years, yes he is. Also the work of Adolf Schlatter is comparable to Plantinga's efforts, but in Method. Schlatter is considered by many as a Methodological Genius of the likes of Augustine.

Brother you gotta delete this. The clickbait thumbnail is so cringe

@edmundoftheangles7977

Жыл бұрын

Clicks>cringe

No, I am the greatest Christian philosopher of all time + some extra donuts and more.

Plantinga’s words should be pondered carefully: “The fact is there are some very good arguments for theistic belief, arguments about as good as philosophical arguments get; nevertheless, these arguments are not strong enough to support the conviction with which serious believers in God do in fact accept theistic belief; furthermore, I don’t believe these arguments are sufficient to confer knowledge on one who accepts belief in God on their basis. I don’t think it’s possible to show, by way of arguments that commend themselves to everyone that they are. (I do believe there are strong arguments for their truth; but these arguments are not strong enough to confer knowledge on someone who accepts them by way of these arguments.)” Knowledge and Christian Belief, p. x

Gordon H. Clark is the greatest Christian philosopher of all time

Weird question. And the answer is no. He argues for warrant. Not the same as unbelief is without excuse.

Aquinas >>>

I know people aren't interested in why atheists might be unimpressed by this; nevertheless here are my reasons (BTW--I'm not an atheist; I'm an a-theism-ist; or maybe just agnostic). about the presentation in general: show me the axioms (that summarize P's thought)! Not enough of this was done, imo. comments on what's presented: conflict between faith and reason: testimony isn't replicable, outside of the scope of the testifier's lifetime. Testimony is subject to multiple explanations. Reason prefers what is always the case, and what is arguably explainable by unique mechanisms. the problem of evil: if God exists, the problem of evil is OUR problem if God doesn't exist, the problem of evil is OUR problem stuff mentioned (but not really discussed) EAAN (evolution inconsistent with naturalism): 1) P doesn't address memes, in homo sapiens, as part of their "evolutionary theory", and memes can care about other things than "brute survival", even if such caring leads to increased species survival. 2) the idea that P(R|N&E) is very low or inscrutable, is empirically implausible for cats making a jump from a tree-limb to a roof. Cats have visual-information beliefs that can be fed into their motor systems allowing them to *reliably* jump to a roof. If cats can do it, why can't people? Or does the EAAN suggest cats can't do it, or that they didn't evolve, or that they are super-natural, or what? SMH

@eugene3484

Жыл бұрын

Actually if God doesn’t exist than tbere is no objective good or evil so I’m not sure about that premise

@heresa_notion_6831

Жыл бұрын

@@eugene3484 What premise? My first criticism was that I didn't clearly get the axioms of P's thought. As for your "moral realism" observation: I'd rather think about what "good" and "evil" means first, objectively, relative to some hypothetical teleology for the universe and then reverse-engineer a god that supports my best hypothesis. Think of it this way: why does a white-blood cell just know an infection of the body is bad/evil? It's because it believes its body (aka its universe) has a teleology of staying alive, and its actions are going to objectively foster that teleology. While you might not believe a white-blood cell believes anything at all, my point is that its actions are objectively "good" relative to the teleology I suggested. So, c.f., Sam Harris, morality is like "medicine" for a society, and there are objective truths about what is "good" and "bad" medicine, with respect to societal outcomes/stability/progression/etc.

@segurall1

Жыл бұрын

@@heresa_notion_6831 teleology can be presupposed in a body, it can’t be as easily defined for a universe. You can try but it subject to a wider method of interpretation. Secondly you use “good/bad” without explaining what you meant by it. Good and bad don’t necessarily have to have a moral component attached to it, like in the case of a white blood cell killing a virus. But usually when people use good/bad it has some moral attachment. Yes Harris makes the case that some action,( if I use your terminology,) are congruent with the teleology of the system.(here I’m also granting that your representation of the teleology is correct as well). This is all well and good but the question is why should we care about the teleology of the system in first place. Even if I grant that being racist for example is against a universal teleology, caring or not caring about that teleology is axiomatic, where in principle each axiom is not better than the other.

@Jimmy-iy9pl

Жыл бұрын

For the EAAN, your first point seems like question begging, and your second also ignores that Plantinga and other EAAN proponents generally believe everything's faculties were designed.

@heresa_notion_6831

Жыл бұрын

@@Jimmy-iy9pl Well they didn't exactly cover EAAN in any detail, and I'm only trying to articulate why an atheist would be unimpressed by the idea that it is (somehow) unlikely evolution and naturalism could lead to "true" beliefs with any regularity. My first point is that Plantinga ignores an important part of human evolution (which makes his use of evolution suspicious, at least when talking about humans specifically). My second point is that it is implausible cats don't have "true" beliefs about their environment, and it's fine if EAANers believe that the only way cats could have them is if they were "designed", but that's just not my belief; nor do I believe any proof has been given that cats are designed by anything other than the environments in which they arise (and maybe human breeders).

He is the greatest living Christian philosopher according to William Lane Craig.

As brilliant as Dr. Plantinga was, IMHO he cannot be considered for the title of "Greatest Christian Philosopher of all Time" for at least three reasons. First, he is not St. Thomas Aquinas...so, that is strike one. Second, he (incorrectly) rejects a fundamental tenant of Classical Theism, the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity. Third, he is not St. Thomas Aquinas. If you meant to qualify the title as the "Greatest Christian Philosopher of Contemporary Times", then he still must be excluded, due to the second issue (rejection of Divine Simplicity). There are more worthy contemporary Christian philosophers, such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, Elizabeth Anscombe, Etienne Gilson, Peter Kreeft -- or more recently, Eleonore Stump, David S. Oderberg, Alexander Pruss, Edward Feser, Robert Koons.

All due respect to Plantinga, but this title is bad. This is so obviously untrue I’d be insulted if I were Plantinga.

No.

Plantinga's greatest hit: god is "properly basic" ... which is a excuse term so that he doesn't have to justify that belief. Indians find belief in Brahma/Shiva/Vishnu properly basic. Pakistanis find belief in Mohammad properly basic. Kids in Utah find belief in Joseph Smith properly basic. LOL

@davijimi

Жыл бұрын

the answer is simple so compare the Gods and see which one would be most likely the real one

@sanjeevgig8918

Жыл бұрын

@@davijimi SPECIAL PLEADING. Also: Your god is not really all-powerful then. He is unable to prevent other gods from convincing billions of other people. LOL

@JM-jj3eg

Жыл бұрын

All of us have properly basic beliefs. Even you.

@sanjeevgig8918

Жыл бұрын

@@JM-jj3eg MY beliefs don't include: Angels, Demons, Spirits, Witches, Dirt into man, rib into woman, talking snakes, talking donkeys, teenager getting pregnant without sex, water into wine, man bodily rising to the sky. LOL

@Sheepish-Shepherd

Жыл бұрын

@@sanjeevgig8918 If you don't believe in God, I can see how belief seems absurd. I find out-of-body experiences, testimonies about demon possession, intercessory prayer healing, and the fact that the placebo effect exists (belief that a medicine will work makes it more likely to be effective) makes materialism less likely.

NEW week: another DEMON video coming soon. LOLZ

Plantinga’ arguments are terrible. He doesn’t understand evolution, and he thinks ‘intuitions’ are a valid basis for epistemology.

@markskojec863

Жыл бұрын

I find there are two different types of atheists. In one camp are philosophers like Graham Oppy and Richard Gale, who take Plantiga’s work serious and provide well thought out criticisms. The second camp are critics who either misrepresent or completely misunderstand Plantiga’s arguments, so those critiques are little more than pointless ad hominem attacks which reflect much more poorly on the critic than on Plantiga himself. Currently you are in the second category, although you can feel free to expand on exactly how Plantinga misunderstands evolution or his writings on “intuitions” are not valid - if you do please make sure to cite exactly where you are pulling your Plantiga quotes from. Maybe you can defend yourself out of the “irrelevant critic” category - it’s unlikely, but possible.

@sanjeevgig8918

Жыл бұрын

@@markskojec863 I find there are two type of Christians. In the first camp are those who are ashamed of being Christians and work on philosophical arguments of a generic god. In the second camp are those who try to type some EVIDENCE of the Resurrection and discuss that. You are in the first camp but you can try to be in the second camp - it's unlikely but possible. LOL

@wet-read

Жыл бұрын

@@markskojec863 I am not very well equipped to dismantle the EAAN, but I do think it is close to complete rubbish. I can't say the same for other things Plantinga has written, as I haven't tried reading them. I find philosophy of all kinds, by theists and atheists alike, to be difficult to chew on, let alone digest. I do what I can when I am in the mood though.

@markskojec863

Жыл бұрын

@@wet-read - That you aren’t well equipped to dismantle EAAN, but still think it’s complete rubbish should give you some pause. Generally if something is “complete rubbish”, you should be able to dismantle it easily - or at least have some compelling arguments against it. Take a flat earth - the times of sunrises and sunsets which are different in different locations are explained perfectly by a round(ish) earth, but are tough to explain if earth is flat. There is testimonials evidence from pilots, and photographic evidence. The movement of the night sky is evidence of a round earth. Etc. How confident can you be that EAAN is complete rubbish if you can’t argue why that’s true? Isn’t it possible that you don’t fully understand the argument but are biased against the conclusion and therefore reject it without true cause to do so?

@markskojec863

Жыл бұрын

@@sanjeevgig8918 - First, how do you know someone is “ashamed” based on the context you provided? Isn’t that just mind reading on your part? Are you aware of all the studies in Psychology which show we often think we’re good at mind reading intentions of others, but are incredible terrible at it? Your comment reveals a character flaw in yourself, not in any Christian apologist. Secondly, you’re also probably using a flawed definition of evidence. You can choose to define it in an incredibly narrow way - I guarantee you do not live your actual day to day life by that principle. Finally, a case for a generic God can answer “Does God exist” affirmatively, which opens up a new line of inquiry “What is the nature of God” which addresses His specific characteristics. It could even include an evidential case for the resurrection. If someone don’t believe in God in the first place, why do you also believe the discussion should focus on that second question which is irrelevant to that person?