Does the soul exist?

[possibletarian]

Can the soul "do" anything without the brain. I don't see how it can.

There is no such thing as the "soul".  You need to accept this, otherwise your thinking will
forever be locked in the Bronze Age.

The connection to the brain is spatial. I think that is all the explanation that anyone could infer about location and mode of existence.

What an absurd claim.  "Spatial"?  Occurring in space.  What does that even mean in this
context?     Per usual, your word salads make no sense whatsoever.

I agree, it always amazes me the tiny world that dedicated theists live in, especially in apologetics.

The reasons they use were forged in a time of ignorance, like  'why is there something instead of nothing' was fine in the time, now we have many theories to explore, alternate universe bubbles etc..etc.. we even challenge if there could ever be a nothing. Or even if a first cause is needed at all.

Things like consciousness are now thought by many to be a product of the brain, rather than some 'bolt on' to humanity.

It was okay to feel special when we thought everything was made for us, it seemed like the earth was the center of the universe, slowly we discovered that in fact we are the tiniest part of the universe, so small we can't even picture our smallness, now we can dream big with that knowledge.

It really is time to put the smallness of theism to bed and begin to breath and discover ourselves and the universe we live in. If i were a god and had made such a vast universe that's exactly what i would want my creation to be doing instead of worrying if they were wanking or not, or if they were worshipping me properly.

What a tiny foolish god classical theism has.

[SteveII]

Coyne understands Plantinga's theology better than Plantinga understands evolution.  For another blog that critiques Plantinga's nonsense, try Laurence Moran's biology blog Sandwalk.

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/09/bo...tinga.html
....
Plantinga has long advocated the accommodationist position from the perspective of Christian apologetics. I bought his latest book, Where the Conflict Really Lies, because I'm interested in the conflict between science and religion.

I've been struggling for weeks with how to explain Plantinga's case. My problem was that I found the whole book quite ridiculous and it seemed to me that Plantina's idea of logic and rationality was much closer to kindergarten philosophy than to something one might expect from a distinguished scholar. I hesitated to say that out loud because it sounds very condescending coming from a scientist.

I had to be missing something. There must be some sophisticated philosophy in there somewhere and I just wasn't getting it. I couldn't post.
Now I don't have to. A very bright young philosopher from Belgium, Maarten Boudry, has reviewed the book at: International History, Philosophy and Science, Teaching Group NEWSLETTER. This is a head-to-head philosopher battle so nobody can accuse Boudry of being an outsider who doesn't get philosophy.
...
I was pleased to see that Maarten's opinion of Plantinga's philosophy is very similar to mine. You really should read the whole review. Let me entice with a few excerpts.
....

You can't make the argument yourself? I'm not going to take your objections seriously unless you understand what it is you are talking about and that you understand Plantinga's claims and conclusions. I don't think you do.

It is kind of hard to do.  Plantinga's book"Where The Conflict Really Lies", which I have, and have read, is a fandango of nonsense and a Gish gallop of a book.  It is a multi-pronged attack on naturalism, and science, as understood by scientists, evolution, cosmology and more.  Much of it dead wrong and foolish.  Like apologist Gish gallups, it makes it hard to adequately critique this nonsense in a concise manner that fits in forums like this.

Science is about evidence.  Theology has little evidence for it's claims, so Plantinga here is up to the usual apologist tricks, trying to rhetorically undermine naturalism and atheism.  Leaving the usual objections to theism left unanswered.  Any number of critics have read plantinga and tell us Plantinga knows zilch about evolution and science.  Jerry Coyne, Larry Moran, P.Z. Meyers have been mentioned in this thread.  They are expert biologists and scientists.  Plantinga is none of these things and it shows. But their are many others who have also noted Plantinga's apologetics are rather inadequate and demonstrate little understanding of how science works as compared to theology, and how evolution has been demonstrated conclusively.  Make no mistake, Plantinga is a creationist, he is an ID proponent and that is simply wrong in so many ways.

Part of the key to understanding Plantinga is to note for him, this is all a game.  It is about defenses, not evidence based theology that withstands examination.  It is a game.  Based largely on straw men and slippery rhetoric.

Notice you don't actually engage the arguments. You have three paragraphs of opinion, red herrings. What Plantinga is or is not "trying" to do AND what his beliefs happen to be are entirely irrelevant to the truth of his claims. If you can spell them out, I will tell debate it. But that is not your typical post--it seems to me you would rather declare something (emphatically) wrong, appear well-informed, and move on.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Miracles and religious experiences are a dime a dozen. We have the miracles of Hindu statues drinking milk, and the notorious "Godmen" with their tricks. And the Hinduvta radicals willing to kill for their religion. We have Radical Buddhists who are willing to kill Rohingas for their religion. They have their religious experiences too. Chinese folk religions are still alive and have their shamans working miracles left and right. Voodoo and Macumba in South America. Santa Muerte in Mexico and the US. The rise of Pagan religions in Europe. Especially it seem recently in Lithuania. Sufis and radical Islamicists. Shiite religious festivals where Iranians beat themselves bloody with chains. Icelanders still believing in elves.

[possibletarian]

Miracles and religious experiences are a dime a dozen.  We have the miracles of Hindu statues drinking milk, and the notorious "Godmen" with their tricks.  And the Hinduvta radicals willing to kill for their religion.  We have  Radical Buddhists who are willing to kill Rohingas for their religion.  They have their religious experiences too.  Chinese folk religions are still alive and have their shamans working miracles left and right.  Voodoo and Macumba in South America.  Santa Muerte in Mexico and the US.  The rise of Pagan religions in Europe.  Especially it seem recently in Lithuania.  Sufis and radical Islamicists.  Shiite religious festivals where Iranians beat themselves bloody with chains.  Icelanders still believing in elves.

Yes, the are meaningless as credible evidence

[SteveII]

Thanks for the clarification.  That is helpful.  I have a further question.  Given that Molinism contends that God possesses middle knowledge about things, whether we have free will or not, and what objections one might make to the combined theology, I would need a specific definition of middle knowledge, as it seems that if you define it analogous to his other knowledge, the door for free will gets very tight.

Perhaps this will help:

Molinists say the logical ordering of events for creation would be as follows:

1. God's natural knowledge of necessary truths.
2. God's middle knowledge, (including counterfactuals).
---Creation of the World---
3. God's free knowledge (the actual ontology of the world).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism#K...erfactuals

I'm not sure that helps.  Are you suggesting that a given counter-factual, say X person will do Y given Z, is necessarily true?  If that's the case, I don't see how that leaves room for free will.

The middle knowledge is largely knowledge of all counterfactuals. If it were the case that P, then it would be the case that Q. Usually we would ground this in observation (making it a necessary truth). If we talk about things that have not happened, then it would be a contingent truth. By why can't God have played out every possible world in a blink of an eye prior to creating one? Then his knowledge becomes "observation" in the way that is needed for grounding, creating a necessary truth.

[possibletarian]

Perhaps this will help:

Molinists say the logical ordering of events for creation would be as follows:

1. God's natural knowledge of necessary truths.
2. God's middle knowledge, (including counterfactuals).
---Creation of the World---
3. God's free knowledge (the actual ontology of the world).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism#K...erfactuals

I'm not sure that helps.  Are you suggesting that a given counter-factual, say X person will do Y given Z, is necessarily true?  If that's the case, I don't see how that leaves room for free will.

The middle knowledge is largely knowledge of all counterfactuals. If it were the case that P, then it would be the case that Q.  Usually we would ground this in observation (making it a necessary truth). If we talk about things that have not happened, then it would be a contingent truth. By why can't God have played out every possible world in a blink of an eye prior to creating one? Then his knowledge becomes "observation" in the way that is needed for grounding, creating a necessary truth.

Can you explain that a bit more, not that I claim to be expert but it looks like gibberish to me ?

[SteveII]

Paul's theology.  God chooses the elect and who is not the elect.  God the great potter arbitrarily loves some and hates others.  All is predestined, who is saved and who is damned.

No, that is Calvin's take on what Paul wrote. I think most theologians and 70% of protestant churches today are not Calvinists.

You keep doing this. You take a narrow doctrine (predestination, original sin--just to name two in the last two days) and make broad generalizations of why Christianity is wrong/crazy/stupid when, at most, your point is against a narrow doctrine that is not widely believed and, more importantly to your point--necessary to believe. They are straw men arguments when the argument does not apply like you make it out to be.

Firstly not all christian sects agree, so getting a universally understood theology is pretty difficult, sometimes even in the same sect, something that given you all claim to have the spirit of god that leads you into all truth is a a cause for serious concern over the truth of your claims, maybe that's not necessary either who knows. 

Maybe you could save us a heap of time and tell us what you think is necessary ?

The point is that in order to use a Christian doctrine against Christianity in some type of logical argument, you should understand what you are talking about. If you don't care to learn, fine--don't use those type of arguments.

[possibletarian]

No, that is Calvin's take on what Paul wrote. I think most theologians and 70% of protestant churches today are not Calvinists.

You keep doing this. You take a narrow doctrine (predestination, original sin--just to name two in the last two days) and make broad generalizations of why Christianity is wrong/crazy/stupid when, at most, your point is against a narrow doctrine that is not widely believed and, more importantly to your point--necessary to believe. They are straw men arguments when the argument does not apply like you make it out to be.

Firstly not all christian sects agree, so getting a universally understood theology is pretty difficult, sometimes even in the same sect, something that given you all claim to have the spirit of god that leads you into all truth is a a cause for serious concern over the truth of your claims, maybe that's not necessary either who knows. 

Maybe you could save us a heap of time and tell us what you think is necessary ?

The point is that in order to use a Christian doctrine against Christianity in some type of logical argument, you should understand what you are talking about. If you don't care to learn, fine--don't use those type of arguments.

Still, would be nice to know what you consider necessary, as we are talking to you in particular not the various sects of Christianity. You are constantly accusing people of not understanding or using arguments against what only a small percentage of Christians think is important, though why they do is a mystery given that you all claim to have the leading of the Holy Spirit.  

So given it's you we are talking to exactly what do you consider necessary ?

[SteveII]

Occam's razor is about proposing explanations beyond what is necessary. You are talking about taking away explanations and being left with none.

You haven't provided an explanation, when you propose a god you don’t provide anything that can be proven, you just kick the can down the road and make an explanation up.  This may have been what they did back in the day when everything was a mystery but now we know we can answer questions and have a long track record of doing so ''I don't know' is the default till we do know.

An explanation does not have to be proven to serve as an explanation. The physical laws of the universe can't be proven yet they serve as an explanation. So I have definitely provided an explanation--not just for metaphysical considerations, but experiential, historical, origins of life, consciousness, and just about any other issue that naturalism has come up short on.

A few additional things about your point
1. The cosmological arguments are back because advances in science brought it back. The universe was assumed to be eternal by most for millennium. Because of Big Bang cosmology (the standard theory), now there is scientific support for the premises.
2. The teleological arguments have gained credence because of advances in science. We had no idea how delicately fine-tuned the universe was until modern physics and cosmology figured it out.
3. Intelligent design didn't develop until advances in science proved that origins/development of life are crazy complex and to assume chance is bordering on stupid.
4. Your "'I don't know' is the default till we do know" is fine as a response (not a defeater), but don't kid yourself that advances help naturalism.

[SteveII]

For reference: Omniscience is usually defined as knowing all true statements or propositions (including counterfactuals) that are logically possible to know and not believing any false ones.

No I asked a question, how does god know ?  My question has nothing to do with free will.

Does he calculate or not ?

Calculate is not quite right. He saw every possible world play out in one single impression, prior to creating this one. The outcome of that was to know all counterfactual truths (if it were the case that P, then it is the case Q).

He chose one (that met his goals), and then actualized it.

[Bucky Ball]

For reference: Omniscience is usually defined as knowing all true statements or propositions (including counterfactuals) that are logically possible to know and not believing any false ones.

No. The reference is wrong. No theology text says anything remotely like the above. A real deity does not "process logically" (AGAIN Stevie has not indicted which system of logic he chose, and why he chose the one he did). He has not demonstrated that the Reality his deity exists in, and he has not demonstrated his gods are subject to the same logics that we know about in this universe. The omniscient gods don't "believe" anything. They "know everything". This dude is even more of an ignorant amateur at this than anyone imagined.

[SteveII]

I'm not asking you to propose it I will, is it impossible ?

Well, if my God was a dependent being, then it wouldn't be the person I am thinking of when I refer to God...so...no, not possible in that sense. It is possible that I am in error about everything, so in that sense, then yes, it is possible.

So a decieving god is not impossible then. It's perfectly feasable for you to believe in the god you do, and simply be wrong about everything ?

What's this "wrong about everything"? My conclusions, sure. Kind of goes with my constant reminding people that demanding proof is to misunderstand the claim.

[SteveII]

No but it's fair to say our 'minds' stop existing when we do, unlike your claims (that are unfounded) that it lives on.

Regardless is still think it's a fair question, what does our 'soul' do when we are asleep is it still interacting with our brain ?

And you say it's not spatially located so is it omnipresent like god ?

Can the soul "do" anything without the brain. I don't see how it can.

The connection to the brain is spatial. I think that is all the explanation that anyone could infer about location and mode of existence.

So isn't the brain a simpler explanantion ? no need to add stuff.
The sould was concieved ina time of ignorance, these days we tend to not add things without a good reason.

The brain isn't an explanation in the same way that soul it. On your view naturalism is the explanation for consciousness. I'm not sure that helps you because giving a naturalistic explanation for consciousness has been tricky to date.

Again, I don't add 'soul' as an explanation of consciousness. I add it for other reasons. It is just a side benefit that it also is an explanation.

[SteveII]

Where does this conscious soul go when we are deeply asleep or under anesthesia?  Does it stop existing for a while?  If so, how could it be eternal?  It doesn't even exist all the time in life.

If the brain was for sensory input and processing power, we should still be aware in such states.  So consciousness is brain-dependent.

I am confused about "go" like it is spatially located. I'm not sure though why it matters how it works unless you can find a contradiction. I obviously don't know. It makes no sense to ask if it stops existing when by definition is it eternal.  Like I said several times already, just substitute the word 'mind' and see what questions make sense. Do you think your mind stops existing for awhile?

You are the person who thinks the soul is independent of the body, so I'm not sure why the sentence "Where does this conscious soul go when we are deeply asleep or under anesthesia?" should confuse you.  If you don't want to say it goes someplace in space, fine.  You still have to explain why it disappears if it isn't brain-dependent.

If, as I said above, the soul "relies 100% on the brain for sensory input and processing power," and the brain shuts down, why isn't the soul just as asleep as your mind/consciousness?

Yes, I think human minds stop conscious functioning when their brains are deeply asleep or under anesthetic.  And they turn on again when their brains are back in the right state.  Those are exactly the kinds of experiences I have had which have proven to me, to my satisfaction, that I have no eternal soul.  You likely have had such experiences as well, as everyone has, so I don't understand why they haven't made you reconsider you soul-theory unless you simply never thought of them as important evidence before.

On your view, does your brain just store all those intangible things that make you you (including sentience, introspection, etc.) and the hard drive is read when you are booted back up? Or is there some other property that serves to extend consciousness through these cycles/occurrences?

If my definition I quoted above is correct, your conclusion (you have no soul) does not follow from your reasons. I never considered any of my brain states experiences as evidence for or against a soul.

[SteveII]

Firstly not all christian sects agree, so getting a universally understood theology is pretty difficult, sometimes even in the same sect, something that given you all claim to have the spirit of god that leads you into all truth is a a cause for serious concern over the truth of your claims, maybe that's not necessary either who knows. 

Maybe you could save us a heap of time and tell us what you think is necessary ?

The point is that in order to use a Christian doctrine against Christianity in some type of logical argument, you should understand what you are talking about. If you don't care to learn, fine--don't use those type of arguments.

Still, would be nice to know what you consider necessary, as we are talking to you in particular not the various sects of Christianity. You are constantly accusing people of not understanding or using arguments against what only a small percentage of Christians think is important, though why they do is a mystery given that you all claim to have the leading of the Holy Spirit.  

So given it's you we are talking to exactly what do you consider necessary ?

What is necessary? Only enough to understand the context and become a Christian.

Jesus is divine, blameless.
Man's condition is corrupted, in need of repair, and doesn't end well if you fail to repair it
God desires the repair
The way to repair has been provide by the cross
The repair is free but requires a confession of the above and a commitment to the future to live as Jesus commanded
That as a result, you can seek a personal relationship with God
It is the only way
Live eternally in heaven

That's not to say other doctrines are not important to hash out.

Drawing conclusions from doctrinal differences doesn't get you what you seem to think it does. The Holy Spirit does not promise to make technical systematic theology obvious. While I don't know of any specific claims, if someone says the spirit told them this doctrine is right over another, I would be hugely skeptical and wouldn't put any weight on it.

The reasons for denominations include culture, government structure, geography, service structure, music, minor doctrinal differences and major doctrinal differences. I would say there are only 3-4 divisions along major doctrinal differences in a narrow band of topics.

[Bucky Ball]

undefined

What is necessary? Only enough to understand the context and become a Christian.

Jesus is divine, blameless.
Man's condition is corrupted, in need of repair, and doesn't end well if you fail to repair it
God desires the repair
The way to repair has been provide by the cross
The repair is free but requires a confession of the above and a commitment to the future to live as Jesus commanded
That as a result, you can seek a personal relationship with God
It is the only way
Live eternally in heaven

So then, your deity is SO stupid, he wouldn't know if the convert actually buys that crap or not ?

There is no evidence that humans were ever perfect or non-corrupt.
God already (supposedly) sent his son ... he died and nothing happened.
The repair never happened.

Such a pile of rubbish.

“Every myth is psychologically symbolic. Its narratives and images are to be read, therefore, not literally, but as metaphors.” Joseph Campbell.

[possibletarian]

An explanation does not have to be proven to serve as an explanation.

Well clearly not, but to accepted as a valid explanation it absolutely does. A bit like evidence you can present evidence, but for it to be valid it has to be shown to be viable in some way.

The physical laws of the universe can't be proven yet they serve as an explanation.

So things like gravity are not real then ? 

So I have definitely provided an explanation--not just for metaphysical considerations, but experiential, historical, origins of life, consciousness, and just about any other issue that naturalism has come up short on.

No, you created a magical being and essentially said 'goddidit' , while it is ans explanation it's not one that can be tested in any way.
A bit like my magic Teddy god.

A few additional things about your point
1. The cosmological arguments are back because advances in science brought it back. The universe was assumed to be eternal by most for millennium. Because of Big Bang cosmology (the standard theory), now there is scientific support for the premises.

Exactly science can bring wonderful new knowledge, but it was science that led to new discoveries, and when it does it changes its conlusions. The big bang does not give you the arguments you think it does.

2. The teleological arguments have gained credence because of advances in science. We had no idea how delicately fine-tuned the universe was until modern physics and cosmology figured it out.

Of course we wouldn't be here as we are if it wasn't suitable for life, but maybe a different form of intelligence could, the fine-tuned argument works on he rather silly and foundless assertion that only life as we see it is life, what is your definition of life ? 

3. Intelligent design didn't develop  until advances in science proved that origins/development of life are crazy complex and to assume chance is bordering on stupid.

Again just a bastardisation of creationism  the consensus in the scientific community is that it isn't science at all but faith based, which is true of many pseudo scientific faith based arguments.
  

4. Your "'I don't know' is the default till we do know" is fine as a response (not a defeater), but don't kid yourself that advances help naturalism.

But it still stands as true even if naturalism is false what is your definition of naturalism anyway ?
We may not even be talking of the same thing.

[possibletarian]

For reference: Omniscience is usually defined as knowing all true statements or propositions (including counterfactuals) that are logically possible to know and not believing any false ones.

No I asked a question, how does god know ?  My question has nothing to do with free will.

Does he calculate or not ?

Calculate is not quite right. He saw every possible world play out in one single impression, prior to creating this one. The outcome of that was to know all counterfactual truths (if it were the case that P, then it is the case Q).

He chose one (that met his goals), and then actualized it.

So we're back to 'he just knew' ? what is the difference between that and seeing the future

And how did he 'see' them play out without calculating ?

[possibletarian]

Can the soul "do" anything without the brain. I don't see how it can.

The connection to the brain is spatial. I think that is all the explanation that anyone could infer about location and mode of existence.

So isn't the brain a simpler explanantion ? no need to add stuff.
The sould was concieved ina time of ignorance, these days we tend to not add things without a good reason.

The brain isn't an explanation in the same way that soul it.  On your view naturalism is the explanation for consciousness. I'm not sure that helps you because giving a naturalistic explanation for consciousness has been tricky to date.

Again, I don't add 'soul' as an explanation of consciousness. I add it for other reasons. It is just a side benefit that it also is an explanation.

There is no evidence that a consciousness exist  as a separate entity so why add a extra to it.
Do you have any evidence at all that we can bring to an 'extra' to the brain ?

[Cheerful Charlie]

I'm not sure that helps.  Are you suggesting that a given counter-factual, say X person will do Y given Z, is necessarily true?  If that's the case, I don't see how that leaves room for free will.

The middle knowledge is largely knowledge of all counterfactuals. If it were the case that P, then it would be the case that Q.  Usually we would ground this in observation (making it a necessary truth). If we talk about things that have not happened, then it would be a contingent truth. By why can't God have played out every possible world in a blink of an eye prior to creating one? Then his knowledge becomes "observation" in the way that is needed for grounding, creating a necessary truth.

Can you explain that a bit more, not that I claim to be expert but it looks like gibberish to me ?

https://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/#H3

....
If Aristotle had not been a student of Plato, then would Aristotle have chosen to start his school at Lyceum? If you believe God knows the answer to this question, you probably believe God has middle knowledge.

Middle knowledge is a form of knowledge first attributed to God by the sixteenth century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina (pictured to the left). It is best characterized as God’s prevolitional knowledge of all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. This knowledge is seen by its proponents as the key to understanding the compatibility of divine providence and creaturely (libertarian) freedom (see Free Will).
...



The basics of Molinism right here.


....
This, of course, also means that the content of middle knowledge is true independent of God's will and therefore, He has no control over it. Yet, it is not the same as natural knowledge because, like free knowledge, its content is contingent. The doctrine of middle knowledge proposes that God has knowledge of metaphysically necessary states of affairs via natural knowledge, of what He intends to do via free knowledge, and in addition, of what free creatures would do if they were instantiated (via middle knowledge). Thus, the content of middle knowledge is made up of truths which refer to what would be the case if various states of affairs were to obtain.
...

Then there are people like David Lewis that claim that all possible worlds really exist.  Which means all possible worlds God can imagine exist in reality.  Once we through reason out the window, you make weird claims and build on them.  Isn't theology fun?


https://www.iep.utm.edu/mod-meta/

...
Modal metaphysics concerns the metaphysical underpinning of our modal statements. These are statements about what is possible or what is necessarily so. We can construe the primary question of modal metaphysics as, “When we make a statement about what is possible or necessary, what determines the truth or falsity of the statement?”
....

Could God imagine a world where no sentient being commits moral evil?

[possibletarian]

What is necessary? Only enough to understand the context and become a Christian.

Couldn't becoming (and therefore believing) get you into any religion, cult or crackpot conspiracy ? 

Jesus is divine, blameless.

outside of faith or the bible (which get you into any religion, cult or crackpot conspiracy) is there any reason to believe this ?

Man's condition is corrupted, in need of repair, and doesn't end well if you fail to repair it

Corrupted from what, is their any evidence we were ever any different ?

God desires the repair

Repair from what, there is no evidence we were any other way 

The way to repair has been provide by the cross

Now it gets surreal

The repair is free but requires a confession of the above and a commitment to the future to live as Jesus commanded

which is to be cool with each other.. right ?

That as a result, you can seek a personal relationship with God
It is the only way

So again we ask, how do you know it's real and not just imagined as it's what you expect ?

You do realise how incredibly silly and foolish that all sounds for an all powerful, most wondrous maxed out on every good attribute god it looks don't you, especially as i know from experience how easy people are fooled.

Live eternally in heaven

This i think is the stupidest claim of all, and one that obviously cannot be proven.
Why did god bother with the flesh at all ?

That's not to say other doctrines are not important to hash out.

Drawing conclusions from doctrinal differences doesn't get you what you seem to think it does. The Holy Spirit does not promise to make technical systematic theology obvious. While I don't know of any specific claims, if someone says the spirit told them this doctrine is right over another, I would be hugely skeptical and wouldn't put any weight on it.

Good for you but doesn't the Holy Spirit guide you into truth, and yet in some Christian sects you would be called a ''believer of the world not the word''

The reasons for denominations include culture, government structure, geography, service structure, music, minor doctrinal differences and major doctrinal differences. I would say there are only 3-4 divisions along major doctrinal differences in a narrow band of topics.

Yes you keep saying

You do realise the claims of Christianity are every bit as silly as claims of any religion, probably even more so.

[possibletarian]

The middle knowledge is largely knowledge of all counterfactuals. If it were the case that P, then it would be the case that Q.  Usually we would ground this in observation (making it a necessary truth). If we talk about things that have not happened, then it would be a contingent truth. By why can't God have played out every possible world in a blink of an eye prior to creating one? Then his knowledge becomes "observation" in the way that is needed for grounding, creating a necessary truth.

Can you explain that a bit more, not that I claim to be expert but it looks like gibberish to me ?

https://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/#H3

....
If Aristotle had not been a student of Plato, then would Aristotle have chosen to start his school at Lyceum? If you believe God knows the answer to this question, you probably believe God has middle knowledge.

Middle knowledge is a form of knowledge first attributed to God by the sixteenth century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina (pictured to the left). It is best characterized as God’s prevolitional knowledge of all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. This knowledge is seen by its proponents as the key to understanding the compatibility of divine providence and creaturely (libertarian) freedom (see Free Will).
...



The basics of Molinism right here.


....
This, of course, also means that the content of middle knowledge is true independent of God's will and therefore, He has no control over it. Yet, it is not the same as natural knowledge because, like free knowledge, its content is contingent. The doctrine of middle knowledge proposes that God has knowledge of metaphysically necessary states of affairs via natural knowledge, of what He intends to do via free knowledge, and in addition, of what free creatures would do if they were instantiated (via middle knowledge). Thus, the content of middle knowledge is made up of truths which refer to what would be the case if various states of affairs were to obtain.
...

Then there are people like David Lewis that claim that all possible worlds really exist.  Which means all possible worlds God can imagine exist in reality.  Once we through reason out the window, you make weird claims and build on them.  Isn't theology fun?


https://www.iep.utm.edu/mod-meta/

...
Modal metaphysics concerns the metaphysical underpinning of our modal statements. These are statements about what is possible or what is necessarily so. We can construe the primary question of modal metaphysics as, “When we make a statement about what is possible or necessary, what determines the truth or falsity of the statement?”
....

Could God imagine a world where no sentient being commits moral evil?

Yup, he sure picked a sucky one hey

[Cheerful Charlie]

You can't make the argument yourself? I'm not going to take your objections seriously unless you understand what it is you are talking about and that you understand Plantinga's claims and conclusions. I don't think you do.

It is kind of hard to do.  Plantinga's book"Where The Conflict Really Lies", which I have, and have read, is a fandango of nonsense and a Gish gallop of a book.  It is a multi-pronged attack on naturalism, and science, as understood by scientists, evolution, cosmology and more.  Much of it dead wrong and foolish.  Like apologist Gish gallups, it makes it hard to adequately critique this nonsense in a concise manner that fits in forums like this.

Science is about evidence.  Theology has little evidence for it's claims, so Plantinga here is up to the usual apologist tricks, trying to rhetorically undermine naturalism and atheism.  Leaving the usual objections to theism left unanswered.  Any number of critics have read plantinga and tell us Plantinga knows zilch about evolution and science.  Jerry Coyne, Larry Moran, P.Z. Meyers have been mentioned in this thread.  They are expert biologists and scientists.  Plantinga is none of these things and it shows. But their are many others who have also noted Plantinga's apologetics are rather inadequate and demonstrate little understanding of how science works as compared to theology, and how evolution has been demonstrated conclusively.  Make no mistake, Plantinga is a creationist, he is an ID proponent and that is simply wrong in so many ways.

Part of the key to understanding Plantinga is to note for him, this is all a game.  It is about defenses, not evidence based theology that withstands examination.  It is a game.  Based largely on straw men and slippery rhetoric.

Notice you don't actually engage the arguments. You have three paragraphs of opinion, red herrings.  What Plantinga is or is not "trying" to do AND what his beliefs happen to be are entirely irrelevant to the truth of his claims. If you can spell them out, I will tell debate it.  But that is not your typical post--it seems to me you would rather declare something (emphatically) wrong, appear well-informed, and move on.

What I have pointed to here was blogs of three biologists who were critical of Plantinga's vast ignorance of biology and the theory of evolution.  Plantinga is essentially a creationist.  Plantinga has also proven to be ignorant about physics, he has claimed that Einstein's relativity, one of the best tested scientific theories of all time is questionable.

Plantinga does not agree with this assessment but argues we cannot understand evolution without considering the existence of God.  Which is untrue according to many scientists.  Evolution fits a godless universe quite nicely.  in the end it is all about tedious and tendentious theist apologisms.  We then move on to Plantinga's well debunked Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.  Which no real scientist believes.  Plantinga wants to undermine the concept of metaphysical naturalism, which in the end fails.

[possibletarian]

undefined

What is necessary? Only enough to understand the context and become a Christian.

Jesus is divine, blameless.
Man's condition is corrupted, in need of repair, and doesn't end well if you fail to repair it
God desires the repair
The way to repair has been provide by the cross
The repair is free but requires a confession of the above and a commitment to the future to live as Jesus commanded
That as a result, you can seek a personal relationship with God
It is the only way
Live eternally in heaven

So then, your deity is SO stupid, he wouldn't know if the convert actually buys that crap or not ?

There is no evidence that humans were ever perfect or non-corrupt.
God already (supposedly) sent his son ... he died and nothing happened.
The repair never happened.

Such a pile of rubbish.


“Every myth is psychologically symbolic. Its narratives and images are to be read, therefore, not literally, but as metaphors.” Joseph Campbell.

That's the point really no one can know till after they die.

Christians claim the have a relationship with god, but aside from fantasy it makes no difference we can truly see in their lives. 
The miracles they claim are not verifiable
the change in their lives long term seems to be no different from the secular world (doing daft religious things aside)
For a people who are meant to be the salt of the world all they seem able to do is make their god look daft.

[SteveII]

So isn't the brain a simpler explanantion ? no need to add stuff.
The sould was concieved ina time of ignorance, these days we tend to not add things without a good reason.

The brain isn't an explanation in the same way that soul it.  On your view naturalism is the explanation for consciousness. I'm not sure that helps you because giving a naturalistic explanation for consciousness has been tricky to date.

Again, I don't add 'soul' as an explanation of consciousness. I add it for other reasons. It is just a side benefit that it also is an explanation.

There is no evidence that a consciousness exist  as a separate entity so why add a extra to it.
Do you have any evidence at all that we can bring to an 'extra' to the brain ?

We are not even sure how consciousness works let alone explain how it came to be. Sure their are theories--but what happens is the more thorough a theory is, the more metaphysical claims it must make.