tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1972660788901084360..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The smell of the sheep (Updated)Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger195125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87733584346345994922016-05-16T21:56:28.344-07:002016-05-16T21:56:28.344-07:001) All men are mortal.
2) Socrates is a man.
3) Th...1) All men are mortal.<br />2) Socrates is a man.<br />3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.<br /><br />The equivalent to what you then said would be:<br /><br />"1) ...are mortal.<br />[...]<br />3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.<br /><br />Circular!"<br /><br />(Very like a Trump tweet, that, BTW. Sad!)<br /><br />Now, you might have argued, say, <a href="http://www.logicmuseum.com/hypothetical/millonenumeration.htm" rel="nofollow">along Mill's lines</a> that <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=5Ep8CgAAQBAJ&pg=114#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">the syllogism is a petitio principii</a> because "We cannot be sure about the mortality of all men unless we are already sure of the mortality of every individual man." But that's not what you did. No, not you.<br /><br />Here's what you should do with your logical discovery:<br /><br />1. Go tell the makers of textbooks like <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=vd8JAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA383#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">this one</a> and <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=dVncCl_EtUkC&pg=PR11#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">this one</a> and <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=JIf3CkTPPjMC&pg=PA58#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">this one</a> and <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=oY-7AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">this one</a> and <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=9gS39YsP5TcC&pg=PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">this one</a> and <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=qkmG04_ecLMC&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">this one</a> and <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=iVqIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">this one</a>. They've got to know!<br />2. Invent a time machine.<br />3. Go back in time to tell Jevons and Whately and Nicole and Arnauld. Stop the madness before it happens! <br />4. Go play hopscotch in an asparagus patch.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38806143225664273592016-05-16T21:55:15.430-07:002016-05-16T21:55:15.430-07:00@Anonymous May 16, 2016 at 7:21 AM: "I agree,...@Anonymous May 16, 2016 at 7:21 AM: "I agree, but you're being too rude to Mr./Mrs. laubadetriste now - even *I* didn't describe his/her stuff as "self-satisfying shite" (although it is, of course!)"<br /><br />I presume that since you resort to "I know you are, but what am I?", therefore you have abandoned or conceded all your claims so far, save that Brandon's argument is circular. Speaking of which...<br /><br />"(1) [...] it would have an unmoved first mover.<br />[...]<br />(5) Therefore there is an unmoved first mover.<br /><br />Circular!"<br /><br />I did <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-smell-of-sheep.html?showComment=1461880621643#c4647713303004910215" rel="nofollow">say</a>, "This argument is demonstrably not circular. (Go on. Do show us how that first disjunction contains nothing but the conclusion of the argument.)" You have misread the phrase "contains nothing but" as what would be the word <a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/include" rel="nofollow">"includes"</a>. Now admittedly, the phrase <a href="http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/nothing-but" rel="nofollow">"nothing but"</a> can be tricky; but I assure you that it does in fact alter the word "contains", such that the phrase "contains nothing but" means having several words in common between the conclusion and the first premise does not make an argument circular.<br /><br />(And how do we know that you think having several words in common between the first premise and the conclusion makes the argument circular? Well, it's not the disjunction, because you removed that... and it's not the logical form, because you removed that... and it's not any of the premises, because you removed those...)<br /><br />(If you think having some words in common is a problem, you should try having no words in common!)<br /><br />(I suppose I should cut you some slack. You did identify those words. And identifying words is an important step towards using them correctly!)<br /><br />So let me illustrate your error with a parallel. Take the famous argument:laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91752958188223224912016-05-16T07:21:15.629-07:002016-05-16T07:21:15.629-07:00@ Taylor Weaver:
"It is much easier to block...@ Taylor Weaver:<br /><br />"It is much easier to block up comboxes with self-satisfying shite."<br /><br />I agree, but you're being too rude to Mr./Mrs. laubadetriste now - even *I* didn't describe his/her stuff as "self-satisfying shite" (although it is, of course!)<br /><br />@ laubadetriste:<br /><br />(1) [...] it would have an unmoved first mover.<br />[...]<br />(5) Therefore there is an unmoved first mover.<br /><br />Circular!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59648818220842911642016-05-08T20:24:32.379-07:002016-05-08T20:24:32.379-07:00(...the Charges of the Bright Brigade...)(...the Charges of the Bright Brigade...)laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34636990402410655112016-05-08T20:22:12.705-07:002016-05-08T20:22:12.705-07:00@Mr. Green: "...a song by Lehrer & Sulliv...@Mr. Green: "...a song by Lehrer & Sullivan, isn't it?"<br /><br />Heh. :)<br /><br />Half a page, half a page, <br /> Half a page onward, <br />All in the valley of Meh <br /> Rode the six hundred [word limit]. <br />“Forward, Brigade 'gainst Light! <br />Baseless charges!” he said: <br />Into the valley of Meh <br /> Rode the six hundred [word limit].<br /> <br />“Forward, Brigade 'gainst Light!” <br />Was there a man gainsayed? <br />Not tho’ the writer knew <br /> Some one had blunder’d: <br />Theirs not to make reply, <br />Theirs not to reason why, <br />Theirs but to scrawl, then fly: <br />Into the valley of Meh <br /> Rode the six hundred [word limit].<br /> <br />Canons to right of them, <br />Canons to left of them, <br />Canons in front of them <br /> Arguments numbered; <br />Heedless of TAB and DEL, <br />Boldly they rode and fell, <br />Into the jaws of Meh, <br />Into the mouth of "Well..." <br /> Rode the six hundred [word limit]. <br /> <br />Flash’d all their cupboards bare, <br />Flash’d heads full just of air <br />Doing seppuku there, <br />Disclaiming reading, while <br /> All the world wonder’d: <br />Plunged in confusion, smoke, <br />Right thro’ good sense they broke; <br />Footnote, citation <br />Reel’d from the sudden stroke <br /> Abused and plundered. <br />Then they rode back, but not <br /> Not the six hundred [word limit].<br /> <br />Canons to right of them, <br />Canons to left of them, <br />Canons behind them <br /> Arguments numbered; <br />Heedless of TAB and DEL, <br />While horsesense also fell, <br />They that fought hard to spell <br />Came thro’ the jaws of Meh, <br />Back from the mouth of "Well...", <br />All that was left of them, <br /> Left of six hundred [word limit].<br /> <br />When can their worry fade? <br />O what great fools they made! <br /> All the world wonder’d. <br />Honor what makes them fade! <br />Honor Light, not Brigade, <br /> Not the six hundred [word limit]!laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78332314148630409172016-05-07T15:34:12.359-07:002016-05-07T15:34:12.359-07:00Laubadetriste: (Note to self: with this Anonymous,...Laubadetriste: <i>(Note to self: with this Anonymous, avoid references to anything *longer* than "three short comments"--that is</i><br /><br />...a song by Lehrer & Sullivan, isn't it?<br /><br /><br />There’s… mathematics, logic, and computer science, chemistry;<br />There’s agriculture, bioethics, geodesy, forestry;<br /> Philosophy, psychology, and nursing and demography,<br /> Hydrology, and botany, mechanics, crystallography;<br /> Then history, cosmology, and epidemiology —<br /> Geology, astronomy, and sociobiology!<br /> Ecology and engineering, pharmacy, geography,<br /> Anatomy, zoology, and law and oceanography!<br /> <br /> <i>Chorus:</i> These are some fields about which our chutzpahtic friend Anonymous<br /> Will cluelessly write comments that entitle to pounce on him us…<br /> He'd fit right into one of those eschatic paintings by Hieronymous!<br /> <br /><br />Genetics, cybernetics, anthropology, ethology;<br />Statistics and linguistics, neuroscience, archaeology —<br /> In short, in matters that demand a shred of curiosity,<br /> He is the very model of New Atheist pomposity!<br /> <br /> <i>Chorus:</i> For posting with a bankruptcy epistemologetical,<br /> He really ought to be a fair bit more apologetical!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57718594572843033142016-05-06T08:36:16.207-07:002016-05-06T08:36:16.207-07:00I've been waiting with bated breathe to see wh...I've been waiting with bated breathe to see what this most recent Anonymous would respond with, and I was unpleasantly surprised to see that, as with all the other dinguses, he merely deflects. Because, of course, *some* of us have work to do!<br /><br />Poor baby! <br /><br />Unfortunately, it seems that understanding what his interlocutor is saying isn't the type of work he is willing to do. It is much easier to block up comboxes with self-satisfying shite. <br /><br />What a sad attempt. Though, it does provide a bit of fun to see laubadetriste, as usual, write something entertaining and lucid.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01967193210015790617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58403238906290009902016-05-06T01:20:40.723-07:002016-05-06T01:20:40.723-07:00@Anonymous May 5, 2016 at 2:02 PM: "I make th...@Anonymous May 5, 2016 at 2:02 PM: "I make three short comments, you reply with four extremely long comments. I'm sure there's a name for that debating tactic and if not, there should be."<br /><br />Name it as you please. It is easier for you to name it than to reply to it, and I would not want to tax you so far as to have you respond to the truth of something rather than the length of it. I suggest you use a name alluding to the history of writers having thoughts occasioned by fruit, dainties, and household objects--like Augustine with pears, Newton with the apple (apocryphal, I know), Faraday with the candle, Proust with the Madeleine, and Chesterton and Huxley with chalk.<br /><br />While you're at it, you could read Huxley the agnostic on Berkeley and Hume--no, sorry, that would be longer than "three short comments"...<br /><br />"Having quickly skimmed them, I have to wonder if you seriously expect me to plough through multiple lengthy comments filled with patronizing, self-satisfied nonsense? Some of us have work to do." <br /><br />Why yes, I *do* expect you to read what you claim to understand well enough to comment on.<br /><br />(Note to self: with this Anonymous, avoid references to anything *longer* than "three short comments"--that is, logic, mathematics, computer science, chemistry, crystallography, mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, climatology, ecology, geodesy, geography, hydrology, meteorology, oceanography, volcanology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, anatomy, anthropology, neuroscience, botany, ecology, ethology, genetics, immunology, paleontology, parasitology, physiology, sociobiology, toxicology, zoology, archaeology, criminology, demography, economics, history, law, linguistics, political science, psychology, sociology, engineering, agriculture, engineering, epidemiology, pharmacy, nursing, bioethics, cybernetics, forestry, statistics, philosophy, history--<br /><br />--I note with amusement that the list of things longer than you are willing to read before commenting on is itself longer than you are willing to read before commenting on--<br /><br />--and make sure too that this Anonymous doesn't also need his food cut into little pieces for him, with someone to tell him that broccoli is little trees and that the other vegetables are planes coming in to land...)<br /><br />"In conclusion, you clearly find the cosmological argument convincing. In my view, that means that: / 1. You're very easily convinced indeed. / 2. You've read too much theology. (In which 'too much' means 'any') / Or both."<br /><br />Duly noted: according to this Anonymous, reading *any* of a subject is too much, before pretending to have understood it enough to comment. I must say, I am half surprised that you admit to having read so little as we thought you had. Usually the ignorant engage also in greater hypocrisy.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29247096278776727832016-05-05T14:02:06.516-07:002016-05-05T14:02:06.516-07:00@ laubadetriste:
I make three short comments, you...@ laubadetriste:<br /><br />I make three short comments, you reply with four extremely long comments. I'm sure there's a name for that debating tactic and if not, there should be.<br /> <br />Incidentally, I didn't address your previous comments as I didn't notice them (I know!) but thank you for pointing them out to me now. Having quickly skimmed them, I have to wonder if you seriously expect me to plough through multiple lengthy comments filled with patronizing, self-satisfied nonsense? Some of us have work to do.<br /><br />In conclusion, you clearly find the cosmological argument convincing. In my view, that means that:<br /><br />1. You're very easily convinced indeed.<br /><br />2. You've read too much theology. (In which 'too much' means 'any')<br /><br />Or both.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29093424545811554622016-05-05T13:28:15.396-07:002016-05-05T13:28:15.396-07:00@ Kyle:
"Sorry, I must have missed the big f...@ Kyle:<br /><br />"Sorry, I must have missed the big flashing "WARNING: I HAVE ASPERGER'S!!!!" sign, you attached to your comment. Silly me."<br /><br />I accept your apology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85908584171294953722016-04-29T20:33:44.211-07:002016-04-29T20:33:44.211-07:00@Anonymous: "I have asperger's and expres...@<a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-smell-of-sheep.html?showComment=1461849362058#c2449196912870569878" rel="nofollow">Anonymous</a>: <b>"I have asperger's and express myself literally. If you think that's funny, good luck to you."</b><br /><br />Sorry, I must have missed the big flashing <i>"WARNING: I HAVE ASPERGER'S!!!!"</i> sign, you attached to your comment. Silly me.<br /><br />And is it possible that for your part, you missed that my "Does too!" was a link to a YouTube video? Here it is again, this time all written out in full an' everyfink: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UA6VGT8Xe8M?start=30&end=39&autoplay=1" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/embed/UA6VGT8Xe8M?start=30&end=39&autoplay=1</a>. And even if I do say so myself, *not* having posted that, given its Olympic grade aproposity (what? it's a word; or should be!), would have been a crime against comedy.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17383366739539632245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46477133030049102152016-04-28T14:57:01.643-07:002016-04-28T14:57:01.643-07:00I note too that you make a passing sneer about &qu...I note too that you make a passing sneer about "actual evidence", without of course addressing any of the evidence that has been offered to you--such as that there is change.<br /><br />"'Strong' arguments in favour of God are nothing of the sort. Example: 'cosmological' argument. This is not a strong argument as it is circular, is constructed from a series of steps which are all questionable, does not follow on logically and is entirely based on philosophical wordplay."<br /><br />Ah. :) So you have decided again to repeat yourself. Very well. Let me repeat <a href="URL" rel="nofollow">Brandon's argument</a>: <br /><br />"(1) Either the moving of what is moved would be an infinite regress of movers or it would have an unmoved first mover. / (2) An infinite regress of movers implies that there is something that is both moved and unmoved in the same respect, which is a contradiction. / (3) Some things are moved. / (4) What is moved is moved by another. / ---- Therefore there is an unmoved first mover."<br /><br />This argument is demonstrably not circular. (Go on. Do show us how that first disjunction contains nothing but the conclusion of the argument.) That the steps in it are all questionable is mere assertion. And up-post a number of folks addressed <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-smell-of-sheep.html?showComment=1460151666282#c3420325176295722470" rel="nofollow">the "questions" you actually had</a>. (I presume you're the same Anonymous--here we go again with the anonymi...) And of course you haven't bothered to reply to <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-smell-of-sheep.html?showComment=1460323687902#c1320619943011261018" rel="nofollow">previous criticism</a> of your prattle about "wordplay". So:<br /><br />"Nobody's obligated to do all the work for you; come back when you actually have some specific puzzle or problem that people might benefit from."laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33714648045127164032016-04-28T14:56:24.389-07:002016-04-28T14:56:24.389-07:00@Anonymous April 28, 2016 at 7:09 AM: "The wa...@Anonymous April 28, 2016 at 7:09 AM: "The way I read this post, Ed Feser's argument seems to be that because atheists only attack 'straw man' positions of weak arguments in favour of God, that somehow means they can't attack strong arguments."<br /><br />As Dr. Feser said on another post: <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-cant-these-guys-stay-on-topic-or.html" rel="nofollow">Why can’t these guys stay on topic? Or read?</a><br /><br />He said nothing about atheists generally. He was explicitly discussing the New Atheists, and indeed in this very post distinguished them from (as they have been called) the Old Atheists.<br /><br />It would be an extraordinary oversight for Dr. Feser to make such a silly accusation against atheists generally, as <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html" rel="nofollow">he was an atheist</a>. And he has repeatedly--almost until he must be blue in the face--gone out of his way to praise the seriousness of non-New Atheists--for example, <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/04/jordan-howard-sobel-1929-2010.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/02/lowder-then-bombs.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-philistinism.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />"Weak', 'straw man' arguments in favour of God are the ones actually held by the vast majority of religious believers. Example: it says so in the Bible/Koran. Notice that the 'weak' arguments here would be considered the strongest arguments in any other area as they refer to actual evidence. That they are considered weak here is very revealing."<br /><br />Yes, it is indeed revealing. Not the way you think, of course. But then that you think so is also revealing. I suppose I am going to have to start calling this sort of objection the "Middle School" objection for short--middle school being the last time I remember popularity looming so large in anyone's estimation of truth. There is of course a <a href="http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-form-of-traditional-consensus_25.html" rel="nofollow">genuine argument to be made from consensus</a>--but then, that's not what you're talking about.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10915543445146862022016-04-28T13:36:32.155-07:002016-04-28T13:36:32.155-07:00If "reality is mathematical in nature" *...If "reality is mathematical in nature" *because* "all fundamental physical theories are expressed in the language of mathematics", does that mean that reality is visible in nature because all fundamental physical theories are expressed in language that is visible? Does that mean that reality is symbolic in nature because all fundamental physical theories are expressed in language that is symbolic? (Ooooh, reality symbolic of *what*...? :P) Does that mean that reality is printed in nature because all fundamental physical theories are expressed in language that is printed? Does that mean that reality is (partly) Greek in nature because all fundamental physical theories are expressed in language that is (partly) Greek? Does that mean that the part of reality that is non-mathematical language is mathematical in nature because all fundamental physical theories are expressed in the language of mathematics? (Or does that mean that that non-mathematical language is not real...? :P)<br /><br />"It is not always realised how exceedingly abstract is the information that theoretical physics has to give. It lays down certain fundamental equations which enable it to deal with the logical structure of events, while leaving it completely unknown what is the intrinsic character of the events that have the structure... All that physics gives us is certain equations giving abstract properties of their changes. But as to what it is that changes, and what it changes from and to--as to this, physics is silent."--Russell, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=XjncL40ZIR0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">*My Philosophical Development*</a><br /><br />If you have trouble getting ahold of *The Analysis of Matter*, part of it is <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Lm58AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA589#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">excerpted in chapter 65 of Russell's *Basic Writings*</a> from Routledge Classics. A particularly fine attempt is made in <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Ko3A6LfanwMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Lovejoy's *Revolt Against Dualism*</a> to apply one "physical theor[y] expressed in the language of mathematics", relativity, to such phenomena as error, hallucination, memory, and dreams. And of course there is the sea of material to be approached via the 84 links in Dr. Feser's <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/mind-body-problem-roundup.html" rel="nofollow">Mind-body problem roundup</a>.<br /><br />Do reply that you don't have time to read all these references you've been given, yet you *do* have the time to comment on them without knowledge.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39598994555454885692016-04-28T13:35:34.585-07:002016-04-28T13:35:34.585-07:00@Anonymous April 28, 2016 at 6:25 AM: "@Anony...@Anonymous April 28, 2016 at 6:25 AM: "@Anonymous "It would appear that reality is mathematical in nature..." / @laubadetriste: "I know you haven't even got an argument for that claim. Nice try, though. :)" / My evidence is that all fundamental physical theories are expressed in the language of mathematics."<br /><br />I note that that still isn't an argument. I presume therefore that you did not follow up with the book I mentioned in my next sentence <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-smell-of-sheep.html?showComment=1460323651675#c5569233591425033084" rel="nofollow">after the one you quoted</a>: "(BTW, if you want a place to start on why that's not so, and coming from a secular point of view, *The Analysis of Matter* by Bertrand Russell that I linked too, ↑above, is a good place to start.)" Or the book after that from the same comment... Or the book after the book after that from the same comment...<br /><br />You know, ↑those books were written by non-theists. You needn't feel threatened in reading them.<br /><br />And of course now we know also that you didn't follow up by reading any of the blog posts you were pointed to. This would be the part where your ignorance becomes culpable. It's one thing to claim that the cosmological argument is weak, having read little about it; it's quite another thing to do so after people have shown you where to read, and have even deferred to you to the extent of giving you references congenial to your capacity.<br /><br />But very well. So you claim that "reality is mathematical in nature" *because* "all fundamental physical theories are expressed in the language of mathematics". OK. Let me stipulate for the purpose of your "argument" that all fundamental physical theories are expressed in the language of mathematics, which in fact you have not shown; and further, that you have made a meaningful distinction between "fundamental" physical theories and non-"fundamental" physical theories, which you have not; and further that you you have shown a way in which it could make sense to say that "reality is mathematical in nature"--that way being supported (or not) by "evidence"--which you have not; and further that you have shown that the way in which something is "expressed" is probative of its nature, which you have not. Let me stipulate for the purpose of your "argument" all those and ask:laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8450678194541953742016-04-28T07:09:36.799-07:002016-04-28T07:09:36.799-07:00The way I read this post, Ed Feser's argument ...The way I read this post, Ed Feser's argument seems to be that because atheists only attack 'straw man' positions of weak arguments in favour of God, that somehow means they can't attack strong arguments. This is false:<br /><br />1. 'Weak', 'straw man' arguments in favour of God are the ones actually held by the vast majority of religious believers. Example: it says so in the Bible/Koran. Notice that the 'weak' arguments here would be considered the strongest arguments in any other area as they refer to actual evidence. That they are considered weak here is very revealing.<br /><br />2. 'Strong' arguments in favour of God are nothing of the sort. Example: 'cosmological' argument. This is not a strong argument as it is circular, is constructed from a series of steps which are all questionable, does not follow on logically and is entirely based on philosophical wordplay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30527410964458186932016-04-28T06:25:17.996-07:002016-04-28T06:25:17.996-07:00@Anonymous "It would appear that reality is m...@Anonymous "It would appear that reality is mathematical in nature..."<br /><br />@laubadetriste: "I know you haven't even got an argument for that claim. Nice try, though. :)"<br /><br />My evidence is that all fundamental physical theories are expressed in the language of mathematics.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24491969128705698782016-04-28T06:16:02.058-07:002016-04-28T06:16:02.058-07:00@Kyle: "Does too!"
I have asperger'...@Kyle: "Does too!"<br /><br />I have asperger's and express myself literally. If you think that's funny, good luck to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36363814914760585752016-04-27T15:30:16.027-07:002016-04-27T15:30:16.027-07:00@Anonymous said: "No it doesn't."
D...@<a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AnonymousCoward" rel="nofollow">Anonymous</a> said: <b><i>"No it doesn't."</i></b><br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UA6VGT8Xe8M?start=30&end=39&autoplay=1" rel="nofollow">Does too!</a>Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17383366739539632245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70712330430022838662016-04-27T14:40:15.051-07:002016-04-27T14:40:15.051-07:00@TheOFloinn: "The block universe thus presupp...@TheOFloinn: "The block universe thus presupposes the existence of God. Nyuk, nyuk."<br /><br />No, it doesn't, other than in circular argument land. (As I'm sure you know) Suppose God can 'see' colours. Does that mean the existence of colours presupposes the existence of God? No.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71866773527598612052016-04-20T15:13:03.506-07:002016-04-20T15:13:03.506-07:00In fact, the following is a common example of what...In fact, the following is a common example of what I read about B-theory...<br /><br />"The B-theory or ‘tenseless’ theory says the opposite - that tenses have no mind-independent reality (though they might involve relations between times and, for instance, utterances) and that the apparent flow of time is merely psychological. Debates between A- and B-theorists have continued with increasing intensity in recent years."<br /><br />From a paper, A New Problem for the A Theory of Time, Philosophical Quarterly (50) 2000.<br /><br />This description of B theory already admits the problem, namely that minds or conscious entities <i>do</i> experience the flow of time, change, etc.<br /><br />In which case they need to account for this self-admitted exception. It's a slight of hand to hand wave away the experience of the passage of time as merely an illusion, but to offer no account of how that illusion comes to be. <br /><br />In other words, <i>except for our consistent individual experience of change, nothing really changes, and we cannot account for this change, but we argue change is merely an illusion.</i><br /><br />The illusion of change requires change or motion! Or so it seems to a simpleton like myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-626216562967053342016-04-20T13:50:43.803-07:002016-04-20T13:50:43.803-07:00The block universe concept as I've heard it de...The block universe concept as I've heard it described (I realize there are variations) all seem to reduce change and cause & effect to mere coincidence. It just happens that this four-dimensional blob is arranged so that the constituent coordinate objects through the four dimensions make mathematical and ordinal sense, display an increase in entropy, etc. But on the 4d block universe view, there doesn't seem to be any <i>logical</i> requirement that this be the case.<br /><br />Further, my personal experience of the past and future make it difficult for me to accept an absolutely static block universe. My awareness of the past grows dim and less and less of my finite future remains uncertain. For my experience to be as such, even if a block universe interpretation is correct, and my measurable, physical components past, present, and future are all eternal, there is a point of view in which they are not, namely my conscious awareness, which is changing. Even if my future actions are determined, there is still my awareness of those actions, decisions, locations, etc., which are changing relative to my conscious awareness. <i>Something</i> changes. I'm not able to see how this can be otherwise, and no mathematical model seems to account for this.<br /><br />If a B-theory, block universe is correct, then change and cause & effect seem illusory, and that doesn't seem to bode well for arguments from motion.<br /><br />But I think it more the case that those theories are missing something and making too much reality out of mathematical models' correlations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19921251813305913662016-04-19T08:05:26.647-07:002016-04-19T08:05:26.647-07:00@Mr. Green – yes, we agree. Relativity does introd...@Mr. Green – yes, we agree. Relativity does introduce a certain "topology" to the block that prevents us from thinking in terms of time-slices, but this is not of much consequence here.<br /><br />There is one thing block theory might be good for, at least it was so for me: block theory made a little more intuitive the notion that God sustains the universe at all times. For a long while I was unhappy with the idea that the universe could not sustain itself, that it would "collapse" if God did not at every moment "hold it up." Collapse where? What force is it resisting that, if removed like a trap-door, would let it fall?<br /><br />The block idea helps a bit in this regard. The whole kit and kaboodle, the entire shape and history of the universe, time included, is simply there, suspended in the void, as it were, defying nothingness, <i>ex nihilo.</i> And that is either simply the way it is, which is absurd, or grounded in some source of being, which is God. So for me it makes a helpful analogy.<br /><br />Erichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43710067403351693212016-04-18T20:48:59.173-07:002016-04-18T20:48:59.173-07:00Laubadetriste: What do you think a *line* is? […]...Laubadetriste: <i>What do you think a *line* is? […] What about time as a river […]</i><br /><br />Ah, but I never said a <i>straight</i> line. In fact, I was thinking of a line just as something linearly- or totally-ordered, so basically with a “before” and “after” (but not a “sideways”). Anyway, no one’s ever accused me of not being weird, but I only meant a fairly mild claim to the effect that ordering events before or after others covers the “-ordinate”, and specifying both the where and the when covers the “co-“; so that depicting time (and space) as Cartesian co-ordinates does not [necessarily] require adding something new, but is a representation of something Heraclitus and the Hopi already had. (Didn’t we see Heraclitus and the Hopi playing at the Palladium that time?)<br /><br /><i>as if, further, graph paper (and Cartesian coordinates) had not themselves great effect on people's thinking.</i><br /><br />I concede I was getting a bit too cute there; but of course that’s the fascinating thing about a change of perspective. New or different information is not always required to come up with amazing insights — just a different way to look at information we already had. So portraying space-time as a block doesn’t have to <i>require</i> adding concepts beyond then and now, here and there (and thus won’t contradict Thomism, etc.); whether looking at it that way provides new insight <i>beyond</i> those minimal concepts is another question, and where the problems start.<br /><br /><i>(Think about it: *how did equations work*, exactly, two thousand years without an equals sign?)</i><br /><br />I remember seeing a copy of the page where <a href="http://blog.plover.com/math/recorde.html" rel="nofollow">Recorde invents the equals sign</a>. It was hard to look at the symbol without seeing it as “equals”. (And of course, the idea was that the two lines in “=“ were meant to be equal to each other, despite the asymmetrical sloppiness with which it is usually handwritten!)<br /><br /><i>I know you were talking to Mr. Green, but he won't mind:</i><br /><br />I’ve always thought it strange for people to hold a conversation in public, and then object when the public joins in!<br /><br /><br /><br />Erich: <i>If the sheer sensations of feeling and perception are not "primary data," I don't know what is – yet in both cases the models are understood so as to demand it be illusory. </i><br /><br />Yes, the models leave something out, but in both cases it is a mistake to suppose that that amounts to an insight that it is not there in reality!<br /><br /><i>It's not exactly arbitrary in what way you divide the block, since even for Eddington, certain divisions are encoded in very the structure of the block, a structure determined by observed facts and laws.</i><br /><br />Relativity <i>does</i> add something new with the concept that there is no unique way to slice up the block into temporal segments. (You can slice up the block from your point of view like a stack of frames of film, but from my perspective, I will slice the block up differently, at an angle to yours — which indeed isn’t arbitrary). But again, I agree that that isn’t a problem for the relevant Thomistic arguments. Plus it is distinct from the claim that there is no change at all.<br /><br /><i>there's no reason that we won't find final and formal causes in the block's structure</i><br /><br />I’d say the structure just <i>is</i> form; and I think final causes can be reasonably viewed a forms pointing across time. So in a “static” world, final causes will simply look like formal causes. Though to repeat our point, it doesn’t follow from that that they aren’t actually final causes in reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88260295385197137902016-04-18T09:33:08.568-07:002016-04-18T09:33:08.568-07:00@Erich: "...light cones...unenlightening!&quo...@Erich: "...light cones...unenlightening!"<br /><br />Heh. :)<br /><br />"I need a concrete example, really, since I don't see a priori how, say, the definition of human life and its beginning would need to be rethought in light of the block theory."<br /><br />Fair enough. And since I myself have nothing interesting to say about abortion per se, yes, we'll have to wait for TOF. Why, that salty old sea-dog cultivates obliquity like a bonsai...<br /><br />laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.com