tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post2225944066610052365..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Another Philosophy FailUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-84200762423720785002015-12-10T19:51:41.144-05:002015-12-10T19:51:41.144-05:00I'm not sure why a philosopher wouldn't cr...I'm not sure why a philosopher wouldn't critique atheist philosophers (the majority) rather than Dawkins. In any case, even if the possibility of a deity was granted, christians still have to connect that deity to the deity of the Bible. That's a preposterous leap. The same deity that fine tuned dozens of physical constants, watched stars ignite, also requires the sacrifice of unblemished lambs and isolation of menstruating females.aljones909https://www.blogger.com/profile/10277116174278206834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-17028569163154619912015-12-10T11:39:28.740-05:002015-12-10T11:39:28.740-05:00I know there are good philosophers out there somew...I know there are good philosophers out there somewhere who are doing useful work on the foundations of science and interpretations of quantum mechanics. I only ever seem to read about the ones who are doing apologetics. They are like amateur mathematics who think they can disprove famous theorems. They accuse me of 'scientism', I accuse them of philosophism. I think that's what they should be called: philosophismists. Another vague term, I know, but if its fallback argument is "You can't prove my god doesn't exist," it's a philosophismist.JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-51915003953390296842015-12-10T02:38:13.561-05:002015-12-10T02:38:13.561-05:00Gutting did a fine job showing that it is possible...Gutting did a fine job showing that it is possible that the universe was created 14 billion years ago by a team of 12 deities, who shepherded it through it's first million years, initiated all the contingencies, and then faded away, leaving nothing behind but a teapot, which eventually wound up orbiting Jupiter.<br /><br />Nobody argues that such things are not possible. They argue that such speculations are silly and useless, because we learn nothing from them. If it makes someone happy to have an argument like that to cling to, they can have it, along with their blanket.<br /><br />Steve Gerrardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03067687115987832807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-85732787925524850752015-12-09T16:03:12.639-05:002015-12-09T16:03:12.639-05:00If anything you're too friendly. Let's neg...If anything you're too friendly. Let's neglect atomic decay. Let's grant causality. Let's grant that chains of cause and effect are not circular and are finite.<br />Why would there be only one such chain? The fine-tuning argument is closely related to the cosmological argument. Well, there are about 30 physical constants to be fine-tuned. Ie there are about 30 physical constants to be caused. That rather suggests that there are 30 first causes.<br />Gutting has made a case for polytheism, no matter how poor. But somehow I don't think he will reconvert. And that shows how intellectually dishonest the whole enterprise of apologetics is.MNbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01427385535099104405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-76892938130630023532015-12-08T06:19:02.092-05:002015-12-08T06:19:02.092-05:00This discussion is as old as Aristotle's "...This discussion is as old as Aristotle's "unmoved mover". Carl Sagan ones said that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, but the only thing I see here is some juggling with words, not unlike the following:<br />1) God is the creator of heaven and earth.<br />2) Nothing existed prior to God.<br />3) Jesus is God.<br />4) Hence: Mother Mary gave birth to her own creator!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11132121296728341268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-58757278396097692142015-12-08T01:31:07.359-05:002015-12-08T01:31:07.359-05:00(short version) I think you nailed it Jeff. We...(short version) I think you nailed it Jeff. We've seen these sorts of tropes before at the Pascal series and elsewhere even here at U Waterloo. The argument from incredulity and from ignorance is inexcusable from anyone, much less one who claims expertise. One would think a philosopher would know better.smurphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630855332076966231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-74719705229182188052015-12-08T01:29:23.136-05:002015-12-08T01:29:23.136-05:00I think you nailed it as usual, Jeff. You and I ha...I think you nailed it as usual, Jeff. You and I have both seen these arguments using the same tropes at the Pascal thingie here at UWaterloo. The whole Salon article's argument seems to come down to one of argument from incredulity and certainly ignorance of the whole 'infinite regresses' at non human scales. Being an ecologist, we don't generally deal in the type of mathematical or statistical proofs you would (we deal some neat applications) but we're still expected to understand how we understand what the numbers are telling us. I am rather dismayed when some members of other disciplines seem to think they can Gish Gallop their way through this and claim it is rigourous. I certainly would not claim to be an expert in Information Theory even though my discipline uses Shannon Information to represent ecological diversity (lots of arguments even there and well there should be). So too should self-styled experts in one area expound upon their cartoonish understanding of other areas.smurphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630855332076966231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-82022459722913367072015-12-07T09:51:56.295-05:002015-12-07T09:51:56.295-05:00At it's very best cosmological arguments (like...At it's very best cosmological arguments (like the Kalam) get you to "the universe has a cause", and not much else. It doesn't actually tell you anything about the cause, and it certainly doesn't get you to "God did it" without a vast amount of arguing from ignorance.<br /><br />I know guys like WLC love to use this argument, but it's pretty facile attempt at explaining the origins of the universe.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01144119263218511100noreply@blogger.com