tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2610993235076855553..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: McGinn on atheismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31702602287359874632012-07-23T11:19:22.110-07:002012-07-23T11:19:22.110-07:00Also in regards to what atheism is, let's stop...Also in regards to what atheism is, let's stop beating around the bush and say it as it is...<br /><br />The BELIEF that there are no gods (immanent, mythological etc) and the BELIEF that there is no Transcendent God (Monotheism). From this point, one correctly concludes as James Sennett so accurately put it, "naturalism is the only real alternative for the atheist".<br /><br />Given that no naturalistic proof has ever been provided and given its internal incoherence no proof can ever be provided, the atheist only has his blind - albeit cynical - faith to base his worldview on... And of course we all know what a big "no-no" that is for someone to postures as a "free thinker" and a "man of science". Hence, why all the sophistry regarding the definition of atheism ensures.<br /><br />Once you grasp this truth, most of the atheist dogma collapses before your very eyes as "sophistry and illusion" (humean pun intended) ;-)<br /><br />-aboveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32049673940952519462012-07-23T11:00:26.926-07:002012-07-23T11:00:26.926-07:00@Eduardo
--I wonder...WHY!!! with so many atheist...@Eduardo<br /><br />--I wonder...WHY!!! with so many atheists always saying that atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods<br /><br />The reason why that is the case is because they are terrified of assuming the burden of proof. Given that atheism/naturalism is intellectually bankrupt it would be impossible for them to provide any sort of "proof" in order for their beliefs to be intellectually sound. So they resort to petty little gimmicks.<br /><br />Anthony Kenny exposes the atheist claim rather well when he explains how atheism is a much bigger claim that Theism. <br /><br /><br />--Wait is he going with God is like Santa and Sagan's dragon ???<br /><br /><br />Every time you hear any sort of argument that likens God to an existent (spatiotemporal entity) know that either the writer is an idiot, an ignoramous or a fraud. Don't even bother with the nonsense of fools like sagan and others. They simply do not deserve a response. JJC Smart (atheist) is one that actually makes the distinction and at least tries to understand the Theistic position of a transcendent God so not everyone is like that. Of course smart's argument for atheism is problematic and ultimately fails but at least he attempt to approach Theism in a more honest way.<br /><br />-aboveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75715521235595547972012-07-03T09:03:53.678-07:002012-07-03T09:03:53.678-07:00great workgreat workfirst world warhttp://oldalbion.hubpages.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41589852462188506192012-07-01T12:19:39.299-07:002012-07-01T12:19:39.299-07:00nicenicecarershttp://www.empathycarers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48224955533056774742012-06-25T14:50:40.097-07:002012-06-25T14:50:40.097-07:00"Given McGinn's almost Leiter-like propen..."Given McGinn's almost Leiter-like propensity for pettiness and personal vindictiveness, don't be surprised if a hostile "review" of one Ed's books mysteriously appears out of the ether."<br /><br />And that'll just mean a subsequent two-martini shootout at the old Feser Corral.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75714752316237971222012-06-25T12:05:26.319-07:002012-06-25T12:05:26.319-07:00Never mind; I've got it following Arthur's...Never mind; I've got it following Arthur's advice.Tony W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02167111142050752619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15937099502124956492012-06-25T11:48:17.572-07:002012-06-25T11:48:17.572-07:00For some reason the website won't allow me to ...For some reason the website won't allow me to download the PDF. Has anyone got an alternative link or file?Tony W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02167111142050752619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82908109566590232992012-06-23T14:13:38.422-07:002012-06-23T14:13:38.422-07:00Charles R. Cherry: Anyone else get the "Dupli...Charles R. Cherry: <i>Anyone else get the "Duplicate headers received from server" error?</i><br /><br />No, but I get the "you need Flash" error. Seriously, <i>Flash?</i> Oh, I see — you need Flash to download the PDFs. Wow. That's… wow. So anyway, I can get <a href="http://media.wix.com/ugd/05abdf_5015d69ff7859bbb85b4d594e79ded69.pdf?dn=Vol.%2B1%2C%2BIssue%2B4_McGinn.pdf" rel="nofollow">McGinn's piece</a>, and <a href="http://media.wix.com/ugd/05abdf_ef25b953f71228ee660703dfd0b1d0c7.pdf?dn=Vol.%2B1%2C%2BIssue%2B4_Fuller.pdf" rel="nofollow">Fuller's</a>, but not Ed's (or any others… there are others?). <br /><br />McGinn: <i>[dragons… one fewer god… no evidence… no proofs… don't believe anything people tell you]</i><br /><br />Golly. Of course agnosticism is often reasonable, "lots of evidence, that I don't think is good enough" is not "no evidence", and omnipotence does <b>not</b> mean the ability to create square circles. In fact, these are all pretty bad. Are we <i>sure</i> this isn't a joke? Hey, in the corner of the page it says: "Vol. 1, Issue 4, 2012". Huh… 1/4/2012. I guess the joke's on me. At least that explains the Flash!Mr. Greennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10970381988302193542012-06-22T11:21:34.937-07:002012-06-22T11:21:34.937-07:00Try a different web browser. That's what they ...Try a different web browser. That's what they recomment further up the page.Arthurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39401148897470693452012-06-22T11:10:17.791-07:002012-06-22T11:10:17.791-07:00Anyone else get the "Duplicate headers receiv...Anyone else get the "Duplicate headers received from server" error?<br /><br />The message I see is: <br /><br />"The response from the server contained duplicate headers. This problem is generally the result of a misconfigured website or proxy. Only the website or proxy administrator can fix this issue."Charles R. Cherryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06314369744988878572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30062441195504129582012-06-21T21:59:13.819-07:002012-06-21T21:59:13.819-07:00Are you arguing simply that we cannot prove by a p...<i>Are you arguing simply that we cannot prove by a physical argument alone that energy is a real thing? You are certainly correct. Are you arguing that the whole procedure of reasoning by mathematical analogy cannot possibly produce any sound philosophical results? Energy is real isn't it?! Our ontology is better now that we have set it beside matter and always mention them in the same breath. Right? How did we even do that?</i><br /><br />I offer this up, just because I enjoy bringing it up whenever the topic of energy shows in these conversations. I wish I had the fuller quote to give context, but damnit, every site online only gives these lines without digging very deeply.<br /><br />"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount."<br /><br />Richard FeynmanCrudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34026457994213286032012-06-21T17:19:07.118-07:002012-06-21T17:19:07.118-07:00Actually I shouuuulld really ... read stuff twice ...Actually I shouuuulld really ... read stuff twice or thrice before posting... sorry if I just argumented the same stuff as you XD reighleyEduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26061750971929487072012-06-21T17:17:07.592-07:002012-06-21T17:17:07.592-07:00If our model produces an absurdity then we should ...If our model produces an absurdity then we should abandon the metaphysics that led to it as absurd.<br /><br />-----------------------<br /><br />I agree to a certain extend, but most of the time we only get absurdities in science when comparing multiple experiments, the idea that the "truth" in experiment A is the same in experiment B is in a sense metaphysical. The experiments themselves might, of course, show some congruency. But I think that it is indeed something we must discuss must throughly before claiming that the truth here is the same truth there. Now personally I think that is true, but I wonder if we have better arguments beyond ... well, then pragmatism or axioms.<br /><br />___________________________________<br /><br />Hmmm, not really. I think argument falls more towards, you can not prove that energy is the way we have defined in physics IF, IF... our metaphysical take on that study is not correct.<br /><br />Now, I don't how much the assumptions in metaphysics and other fundamental places play out during a more thorough study of these things, but, I suppose that if our metaphysics, applied in physics is correct to a certain extent, the energy you talk about might exist, or at least something that can be defined by us as energy exist.<br /><br />So, to sum it up, I am really bad at arguing from stuff I have thought just a while ago... The take would be this, something that can have the characteristics of energy might exist as long as we don't any epistemological problems with it; We cannot claim to know certain things, especially those in metaphysics just through our experience, because you contextualise our experience before we tell what we saw; There might be some things we JUST KNOW... Buuuuut, I know people will bitch about that XD.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33718680551513586702012-06-21T16:22:38.913-07:002012-06-21T16:22:38.913-07:00@Eduardo,
I certainly agree that we carry some of ...@Eduardo,<br />I certainly agree that we carry some of our preconceptions with us when we engage in model building. That said, if reasoning by analogy in this way were entirely circular, why would we do it? We construct a model of the universe as we imagine it in part to investigate its properties and put it through the paces. If our model produces an absurdity then we should abandon the metaphysics that led to it as absurd. If the model has some unusual property then it may teach us something about the consequences of our metaphysical system as well.<br /><br />Especially as it is used over generations a good model certainly influences our conception of the world.<br /><br />Consider for a moment Newton's laws. The statement "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" introduces a symmetry into a system obeying Newton's laws and with that symmetry comes a couple of conservation laws. One of them is energy. I doubt that Newton would have seen the conservation of energy as anything other than a mathematical convenience, but the more it cropped up in physics the more useful and convenient it became to speak of energy as something. Now we don't hesitate to point to energy as one of the basic components from which the universe is made. This is a way different ontology than the one Newton put into his model. So the model did teach us something eventually, as we played with it, about the way the universe might plausibly be put together. It illustrated a relationship between motion and matter that it would have been impossible to guess, and also between symmetry and being. The idea came as a logical consequence of the model, but that doesn't mean Newton had it in mind already, or that it did not have broad consequences.<br /><br />Are you arguing simply that we cannot prove by a physical argument alone that energy is a real thing? You are certainly correct. Are you arguing that the whole procedure of reasoning by mathematical analogy cannot possibly produce any sound philosophical results? Energy is real isn't it?! Our ontology is better now that we have set it beside matter and always mention them in the same breath. Right? How did we even do that?reighleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30454110065441068502012-06-21T15:16:52.450-07:002012-06-21T15:16:52.450-07:00Arthur said...
I love the way BI openly won't...<i>Arthur said... <br />I love the way BI openly won't read hundreds of pages of reasoning that resist his preconceptions. I wonder what he makes of "The God Delusion", which also spans hundreds of pages, or "The Origin of Species"?<br /><br />One wonders why BI is even here. What could he hope to gain? If we're all clueless, just leave us to our confusion; you have little to learn from us. If we're not, engage with our arguments.<br /></i><br /><br />Well he's a troll. No wonder he and GIP are often ignored.<br /><br />They should be ignored as a matter of fact, unless they contribute meaningfully to the discussion.<br /><br />I suppose trolls are like dogs and need to be trained. Only they make potty through their keyboards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21439272166791987552012-06-21T06:43:08.946-07:002012-06-21T06:43:08.946-07:00Well, I started to realise how wrong is to say tha...Well, I started to realise how wrong is to say that science has necessarily proved one's metaphysics to be right. In Sean Carroll's case is naturalism, but I suppose this can be applied to any metaphysical position.<br /><br />For instance, when we are doing science, we have to define very clearly what we are studying and what is happening. Now the scientist will obviously define things through his metaphysics, because ... well that is what he believes that exist!<br /><br />So he defines what is there in the experiment through his epistemological theories and metaphysical theories, or someting between those lines.<br /><br />And then ... the explanation of what is happening there follows from ... well his own metaphysics! He will explain it within his own set of beliefs/philosophies. So... what we conclude from the universe after we have already postulated that the universe is exactly the way we believe the universe to be.... well THAT THE UNIVERSE IS THE WAY WE BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE TO BE!!!!!!<br /><br />that sort of answer your question BI, to why metaphysics can't be bothered by science, because it happen BEFORE science ever takes place. Well Feser did replied to you, but you sort of ignored, said that if metaphysics can be infered from experience than another experience can refute it ... you STOPPED THERE, so don't even try to lie like you did with the Heisenberg deal; instead of quoting the guy you said what he said with your own words... of course after you read the thing, he was talking about mechanicism, not really Law of causality... but who knows maybe he did said something of the sort somewhere.<br /><br />So anyways, just realised how we do circular reasoning when it comes to inferring from science, or rather ... from the theories of science, that our particular metaphysics is right.<br /><br />So Am I wrong? Am I right?<br /><br />oh for those who think I am wrong, and will just stop there ... you know say that I am just wrong and that is it. Don't post, don't waste your time posting a freaking one linerEduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3300314129641537252012-06-21T06:36:25.960-07:002012-06-21T06:36:25.960-07:00Argument by page number. Feser uses a similar argu...<i>Argument by page number. Feser uses a similar argument is TLS: argument by number of books on his bookshelf. The Hindus likewise have thousands of books and thousands of pages.<br /><br />I have a finite lifetime. I have read about a dozen books on Christian apologetics, all of them lousy with specious reasoning, factual errors, and logical fallacies . . . including TLS. How many more books should I read on this topic?</i><br /><br />Once again, you admit to being an intellectually dishonest troll. Please, regale us with these "factual errors" and "logical fallacies".rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10074273277568209952012-06-21T06:20:21.206-07:002012-06-21T06:20:21.206-07:00I love the way BI openly won't read hundreds o...I love the way BI openly won't read hundreds of pages of reasoning that resist his preconceptions. I wonder what he makes of "The God Delusion", which <i>also</i> spans hundreds of pages, or "The Origin of Species"?<br /><br />One wonders why BI is even here. What could he hope to gain? If we're all clueless, just leave us to our confusion; you have little to learn from us. If we're not, engage with our arguments.Arthurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-944402247081218172012-06-21T05:42:03.491-07:002012-06-21T05:42:03.491-07:00@ Godinpotty
I think the fallacy of Sean Caroll a...@ Godinpotty<br /><br />I think the fallacy of Sean Caroll article can be summed up in his last paragraph:<br /><br /><i>"The universe is going to keep existing without any help, peacefully solving its equations of motion along the way; if we want to find meaning through compassion and love, we have to create it ourselves."</i><br /><br /><br />This is a very bad statement, both philosophically AND scientifically.<br /><br />It fails to recognize the difference between the theory of the world we created to explained it (i.e. the equation of motion) which are descriptions of ideal situations and reality itself.<br /><br />The very idea that the 'laws of nature' as we describe them are real is an illusion, or rather, an abstraction and not direct reality.<br /><br />Reality DOES obey some rules, and scientific theories are nothing more than an abstract description of them, not something real in itself.<br /><br /><br />For example: gravitation IS real. Apples fall from the tree and hit Newton on his melon.<br /><br />Newton's and Einstein's gravitation theories and laws, however, are just 'drawings' of gravitation.<br /><br />So they are to gravitation what a drawing of you is to you. Sometimes very crude drawings indeed.<br /><br />To note that even Einstein's gravitation law has some competitors and might in itself be partially wrong as Newton's was.<br /><br />His article/blog post then commits this and other fallacies that hardly critiques classical theism at all.<br /><br /><br />Simply to state that the universe 'solves equations of motion', even if meant metaphorically, is a fallacious statement as equation of motion exist only in our explanation of reality, not reality as such.<br /><br /><br />This shows how many scientists who can DO physics, perhaps do not really UNDERSTAND physics, beyond their little research project (and any research is little in the grand scheme of reality).<br /><br />I think Feymann, even if even he was pretty awful at philosophy, as a scientist understood this.<br /><br />That is why he said that we can DO quantum mechanics, but no one really understands quantum mechanics.Ismaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80235784566651221282012-06-21T05:35:42.130-07:002012-06-21T05:35:42.130-07:00BI, the whole deal of talking about number of page...BI, the whole deal of talking about number of pages is to show how big the conversation is there.<br /><br />Well speaking of fallacies, isn't that an unsubstanciated argument you just did, just claiming something without even trying to show you are right ???<br /><br /><br />yeah ... it is ... unless a part of your comment got erased.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47563046254396561852012-06-21T05:34:48.303-07:002012-06-21T05:34:48.303-07:00BI,
You should read no more books on this topic i...BI,<br /><br />You should read no more books on this topic if you don't find them valuable. Especially as time is limited. Why you keep spending your time posting to a blog discussing philosophers you don't want to read is a mystery.David Thttp://www.lifesprivatebook.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43608583677373513052012-06-21T05:32:38.461-07:002012-06-21T05:32:38.461-07:00"How many more books should I read on this to..."How many more books should I read on this topic?"<br /><br />How about prove to us that you have actually understood a single chapter in one you've already read, instead of obnoxiously touting all the "fallacies" you've unveiled?<br /><br />Or maybe offer an argument worth the dignity of actually engaging? I won't hold my breath.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60588505030769511422012-06-21T05:28:48.747-07:002012-06-21T05:28:48.747-07:00It means ... go there ON THAT PAGE AND READ IT ......It means ... go there ON THAT PAGE AND READ IT .... shit shouldn't be hard to guess this one.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65000928587591053822012-06-21T04:58:08.699-07:002012-06-21T04:58:08.699-07:00"The Questions on God of Aquinas' Summa T..."The Questions on God of Aquinas' Summa Theologica runs about 300 pages. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's God: His Existence and His Nature devotes about 500 pages to the subject."<br /><br />Argument by page number. Feser uses a similar argument is TLS: argument by number of books on his bookshelf. The Hindus likewise have thousands of books and thousands of pages.<br /><br />I have a finite lifetime. I have read about a dozen books on Christian apologetics, all of them lousy with specious reasoning, factual errors, and logical fallacies . . . including TLS. How many more books should I read on this topic?BeingItselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13196126096999779200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50670837668741194752012-06-21T04:45:38.622-07:002012-06-21T04:45:38.622-07:00@Arthur:
"As I understand it, the problem is...@Arthur:<br /><br />"As I understand it, the problem is that once Aquinas has established the existence of Being Itself and a First Cause, he then goes on, throughout hundreds of pages of argumentation, to work out the attributes of this "necessary being". When he's done, that thing sounds an awful lot like God and not at all like "The Universe" of something atheism-friendly. At least, that's the pitch."<br /><br />And you understand it right. The <i>Questions on God</i> of Aquinas' <i>Summa Theologica</i> runs about 300 pages. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's <i>God: His Existence and His Nature</i> devotes about 500 pages to the subject. These are just two examples.<br /><br />But let goddinpotty allow his ignorance to do the talking. I fear it is incurable.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.com