tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post2823815328945426501..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Playing The Mystery CardStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21162510399840599322018-07-18T12:36:29.204+00:002018-07-18T12:36:29.204+00:00buy osrs gold if you want to have advantage over o...<a href="https://probemas.com/" rel="nofollow">buy osrs gold</a> if you want to have advantage over others at very low prices!Richard Ressingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06979467598912399880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-71745923449841980542015-04-24T04:50:05.335+00:002015-04-24T04:50:05.335+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.jaring safetyhttp://www.jual-jaring.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-79725393365840614772014-07-28T05:21:36.070+00:002014-07-28T05:21:36.070+00:00l like the scientific method of doing thing, it gi...l like the scientific method of doing thing, it give more sence than other.Jameshttp://science-technology-documentary.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20321872890169638052012-01-14T06:50:20.339+00:002012-01-14T06:50:20.339+00:00I stumbled upon your blog post a few days ago and ...I stumbled upon your blog post a few days ago and you've truly influenced us to start crocheting once more! I became simply wondering should you be capable of send me personally the actual pattern for this specific beret (it is lovable!) since website link won't are employed by myself..? I'd truly regards!Buy Runescape Goldhttp://www.4rsgold.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-25570115904092902852011-09-24T00:20:43.487+00:002011-09-24T00:20:43.487+00:00is there another term or phrase for "playing ...is there another term or phrase for "playing the mystery card" so that I can research it more?Tinnitus Toolkithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10052479639722505806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64774140916262481842011-09-24T00:18:39.041+00:002011-09-24T00:18:39.041+00:00is "playing the mystery card" known by a...is "playing the mystery card" known by any other terminology, so that I can research it further?Tinnitus Toolkithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10052479639722505806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-68953486072549059922010-07-07T18:43:38.668+00:002010-07-07T18:43:38.668+00:00Actually, economics in my experience is never so a...Actually, economics in my experience is never so altruistic. Economics is mostly a system of obtaining advantage. Assuming though that we are to approach economics more a tool to aid us in maximising wealth for everyone (by wealth I mean everything from food to luxuries) we are dealing with maximising a "good" that we all happen to agree on. Having food and so on is good. I doubt very many people would disagree with that. Science (economics) has done exactly nothing to tell us in the first place that having food is good. We all just happen to think so. It cannot be objectively (strict objectivity) derived that food is good. I would this fact is actually irrelvant when we all agree with what is "good" and what is "bad". The problems arise when we venture into areas of disagreement. It is completely outside of the scope of science to show us what we "ought" to find good, at least not without positing a prior notion of what is good.V. Igrahttp://www.getpwnt.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-8472104828584788862010-07-04T22:07:25.241+00:002010-07-04T22:07:25.241+00:00The Problem of Evil assumes intelligible motives f...The Problem of Evil assumes intelligible motives for a supernatural being. But that assumes simple personification - God is a normal person just like you or me(!) Therefore intuition about God's motives and actions is feasible.<br /><br />But is personification a trivial fallacy?<br /><br />God (a normal person like you or me) is over 5,000 years old.<br />God (a normal person...) created the world.<br /><br />Suppose some supernatural being(SB) exists. Suppose that the lifetime of the SB is long compared to the universe. How long have fire-starting hominids been noticeable? Less than an eyeblink in the life of the universe.<br /><br />Perhaps millions of planets have emergent phenomena (life). Only human arrogance and ignorance considers Earth interesting.<br /><br />Has an SB even noticed humans? An SB could be like any Earth species, or like none. We have no sound way to know anything about the motives or actions of SBs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28698729427641967002010-07-03T13:20:28.734+00:002010-07-03T13:20:28.734+00:00Great essay! There's one slight problem with t...Great essay! There's one slight problem with the quotation from Hamlet, though.<br /><br />When Hamlet says "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy", he doesn't mean <i>Horatio's</i> personal philosophy. "Your" is an intensifier here, like "the" but with more emphasis.<br /><br />It's the same as if I said, "Now take your Rolex, there's a great watch!" I'm not implying you own a Rolex, I'm just pointing to the general subject of Rolexes.<br /><br />Still, this doesn't stop a lot of people from misquoting the line in a personal-attack sense, so carry on!<br /><br />(Also a minor typo: your "four-sided triangle" explorer switches to a "he" in the middle of the tale.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83625890880147403902010-07-01T10:54:16.985+00:002010-07-01T10:54:16.985+00:00Re: God Testing
Well that seems to rule out the O...Re: God Testing<br /><br />Well that seems to rule out the Old Testament deity then. Very fond of proof that one. Burning bushes, parting seas and so on. Even took part in a rather public face off with Baal. <br /><br />Than there are the mentions of "many signs and wonders" in the NT. So up until at least the end of Paul's writings it was expected that God would provide tangible proof to sway non-believers. The cryptic nature of God seems to be a later accretion of this particular Black Hole.wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-69965535169799029762010-07-01T08:27:21.908+00:002010-07-01T08:27:21.908+00:00It would not be putting God to the test to merely ...It would not be putting God to the test to merely observe (without having to set up an experiment) that there have been NO cases where an amputee was healed (via regeneration), no matter how strong the person's belief and no matter how fervent the prayers.<br />Not a good track record for God, no indeed.<br /><br />(Also: what would God have to fear from a test? If He were as powerful and efficacious as described, He would pass any test that could be posed, no problem.<br /><br />The notion of "do not test God" sounds to me like "Don't try to be convinced by any real proof; just believe, the way we tell you to."<br />Sorry, but someone's (quite possibly fallible) word is not enough!Stuartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-8077649361423178532010-07-01T06:08:54.568+00:002010-07-01T06:08:54.568+00:00Stephen Law,
many people think God answers prayer...Stephen Law,<br /><br />many people think God answers prayers, but there are controlled experiments that have shown this not to be the case. Now if you point them to these studies they point to the Bible and say that God should not be put to the test. Since these experiments are tests they claim God didn't answer the prayers because of what the Bible says. Is there a way to deal with this objection?Bogdanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15449119709471870254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-19670074443900740882010-06-30T08:17:36.529+00:002010-06-30T08:17:36.529+00:00Hi Glenn
Well, it's also the case that Dawkin...Hi Glenn<br /><br />Well, it's also the case that Dawkins does not rely on assumption of scientism. If M wants to accuse D of it, he can, but he'd need to show the charge sticks.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-86163430709546133892010-06-30T07:03:00.435+00:002010-06-30T07:03:00.435+00:00One thing that struck me here is this:
* McGrath ...One thing that struck me here is this:<br /><br />* McGrath says that Dawkins employs scientism - the view that every question is a scientific question with a scientific answer. In other words, science is the only way to know things.<br /><br />* You note that Dawkins denies holding this view.<br /><br />* On this basis alone, you accuse McGrath of attacking a straw man.<br /><br />Surely this is just obviously wrong headed. It may well be that Dawkins denies employing scientism. But this certauinly doesn't show that McGrath is wrong in saying that Dawkins employs it nonetheless. In what other context would it be acceptable to say that since a person denies employing as certain approach, it follows that they don't actually employ it?Glennhttp://www.beretta-online.com/wordpressnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-34353572555898746852010-06-29T06:52:20.959+00:002010-06-29T06:52:20.959+00:00"What explains why there is a natural world a..."What explains why there is a natural world at all? Why there is something rather than nothing?"<br /><br />Because absolute nothingness cannot exist. Absence of space and time means that, even if you consider a dimensionless point (=no space) as having existence other than in a purely geometric, abstract way, the absence of time means that such a "state of existence" has no duration.<br />Therefore it can't exist that way for any amount of time at all; therefore total nothingness cannot exist; therefore something must exist, at all possible times.<br /><br />That takes care of the *why* of existence; there is no other choice. Now, the "what" of existence -- the particular style, substance, or nature of things -- that's what, as of now, has no single, indisputable answer.<br />But we're working on it, partly by being willing to adapt (or even discard) our ideas to correlate with evidence.<br />The adherents of religions, by contrast, are not known for being willing (or, in some cases, allowed!) to do this.<br />(Consider Savonarola, for just one example of the "not allowed" type.)Stuartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54350314542912091822010-06-29T02:36:51.871+00:002010-06-29T02:36:51.871+00:00Stephen Carr,
Good things are good and bad thing...Stephen Carr, <br /><br /><i>Good things are good and bad things are bad.<br /><br />That is what is meant by 'good' and 'bad'.</i><br /><br />These are value judgements, value judgements are intrinsically subjective. <br /><br /><i>Economics can tell us how to maximise goods. (At least if economists got their act together)<br /><br />Should economics be abandoned on the grounds that economics cannot explain why some people call somethings 'goods' and do not value other things?</i><br /><br />Actually, economics in my experience is never so altruistic. Economics is mostly a system of obtaining advantage. Assuming though that we are to approach economics more a tool to aid us in maximising wealth for everyone (by wealth I mean everything from food to luxuries) we are dealing with maximising a "good" that we all happen to agree on. Having food and so on is good. I doubt very many people would disagree with that. Science (economics) has done exactly nothing to tell us in the first place that having food is good. We all just happen to think so. It cannot be objectively (strict objectivity) derived that food is good. I would this fact is actually irrelvant when we all agree with what is "good" and what is "bad". The problems arise when we venture into areas of disagreement. It is completely outside of the scope of science to show us what we "ought" to find good, at least not without positing a prior notion of what is good.<br /><br /><i>Perhaps science cannot tell us why prosperity and well-being are good, but it can tell us how to maximise well-being ie what are the correct choices to make to maximise well-being.</i><br />Exactly. <br />So the point is that we that we <i>a priori</i> decide what is good and science is certainly capable of helping to achieve that good. It is not capable of originating that morality. Those questions must be already settled, so to speak, in order for us to utilise science. People disagree with Harris not on the grounds that science can't aid us in maximising what we have already decided is good. As I say, I think he makes an excellent case for that. My disagreement and seemingly to me the disagreement others have with Harris is that he seems to be claiming (I say <i>seems</i> because he is not exactly crystal on the boundries) that science can originate a moral "ought". I am certainly willing to accept that I may have misunderstood Harris in this and he is only claiming that we maximise what we already decide is good. If that is the entirety of his claim, then I would have no major disagreement.The Celtic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570106602777322387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-56865117690588576732010-06-26T03:11:22.924+00:002010-06-26T03:11:22.924+00:00"Perhaps science cannot tell us why prosperit..."Perhaps science cannot tell us why prosperity and well-being are good, but it can tell us how to maximise well-being ie what are the correct choices to make to maximise well-being."<br /><br />Science cannot tell us what is good or bad. Society has arbitrarily dictated what is "good" and "bad", but this is just a malevolent lie.<br /><br />There is no such thing as "good" and "bad" people. The problem with human society and maximizing well being is largely because what will maximize My well-being often diminishes the well-being of others (poison containers and competitive business are two examples), and the Truth that over 99% of all humans are unable too recognize Truth.<br /><br />For more information, visit My website at www.Truthmedia.8k.com<br /><br />Travis.Seer Travis Trumanhttp://www.Truthmedia.8k.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-35013542692234495452010-06-25T08:06:44.718+00:002010-06-25T08:06:44.718+00:00"Let us say: 'Either God is or he is not...."Let us say: 'Either God is or he is not.' But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question."<br />From your quote of Pascal.<br /><br />Now, does "good exxist in this universe or not?<br />If not, then irrelevant.<br />If yes, then why is "god" not detectable.<br />We can detect down to neutrionos and quarks, and up to distant dark matter and supergalaxy clusters, and all the way in between.<br />But no "god".<br /><br />Why bother, therefore?<br /><br />Incidentally, I suggest looking up the history of the detectability and absence of the "Luminiferous Aether"Greg Tingeynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64755150672066233952010-06-24T20:45:52.156+00:002010-06-24T20:45:52.156+00:00"If you want to increase crop production, can..."If you want to increase crop production, can science tell you what you ought or ought not to do?<br /><br />If you want to increase the well-being of humanity in general and of individuals in particular, can science tell you what you ought or ought not to do?"<br /><br />Well, science will answer the first question effectively, but will it answer the second? After all, if life has more misery than happiness to it- and over a lifetime it probably does- then the way to increase the well-being of humanity in general and of individuals in particular would be to make sure individuals were not born and humanity in general became extinct. "Best never born; next best, die young."<br />There are questions science cannot answer- "why" rather than "how" questions; that's no reason to think any possible nonscientific answers will be better than thescientific ones, in any way or by any definition.Rogernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-91654711725280052802010-06-24T13:47:18.397+00:002010-06-24T13:47:18.397+00:00Thanks for that Mr. Law. I thoroughly enjoyed read...Thanks for that Mr. Law. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.<br /><br />I particularly liked the dissection of MacGrath. Even the most articulate (not specifically MacGrath) apologist resorts to fighting strawmen, deflection and obfuscation in their arguments.<br /><br />And it's always worth noting that even if the theists are correct that god exists, the god they describe is a scumbag that deserves no voluntary worship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-29904548752066726932010-06-24T00:53:21.276+00:002010-06-24T00:53:21.276+00:00Congrats. You have the DM virus. It's like h...Congrats. You have the DM virus. It's like herpes and as far as I can tell, it's permanent.<br /><br />HJBinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09911928552839958713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37997727854926047862010-06-23T21:01:47.755+00:002010-06-23T21:01:47.755+00:00Stephen Wykstra's line seemed to me to be tend...Stephen Wykstra's line seemed to me to be tending towards the non-temporal agent problem. The "goods" promised are of an order we cannot currently comprehend and possibly never can. Is it still justifiable to describe these as "goods". Would it not be more accurate to say "incomprehensibles"? <br /><br />Re: Hypothetical imperatives etc. Aren't there a bunch of people - I think they are termed experimental philosophers - who are trying out peoples reaction to various moral problems (often involving fat people and runaway trains it seems) to investigate how our "moral sense" works. If this provided a natural explanation of why we think we ought to do things, would this not enable us to decide at least in some cases what we ought to do. In fact it only has to be able to tell us what we ought to do or not to do in one single case for Hume's assertion to be shot down. If we are provided with a large set of alternatives of which science can eliminate just one as being immoral that goal is surely met isn't it?<br /><br />Re Skeptic dampening effect - a variant of this I have encountered is "God will not be put to the test" i.e. the agent is unwilling to participate in any experiment which would prove its existence. And of course omniscience etc allows Him to see through crafty experiments using only genuine believers... <br /><br />Was the Superdupercomputer reference you were after this one by Chalmers - <a href="http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html" rel="nofollow"> The Matrix as Metaphysics</a>?wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20729745135396460652010-06-23T20:12:11.376+00:002010-06-23T20:12:11.376+00:00C. CHIMP
In absolute objectivity, misery and the e...C. CHIMP<br />In absolute objectivity, misery and the extinction have the same "value" as happiness and prosperity. <br /><br />CARR<br />No they don't.<br /><br />Good things are good and bad things are bad.<br /><br />That is what is meant by 'good' and 'bad'.<br /><br />Economics is a science ,( of sorts)<br /><br />Economics can tell us how to maximise goods. (At least if economists got their act together)<br /><br />Should economics be abandoned on the grounds that economics cannot explain why some people call somethings 'goods' and do not value other things?<br /><br />Perhaps science cannot tell us why prosperity and well-being are good, but it can tell us how to maximise well-being ie what are the correct choices to make to maximise well-being.<br /><br />This might be almost impossible to do in practice, but forecasting the weather over the next month is also almost impossible to do, but nobody claims that weather-forecasting is not a science.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-71593932752235943942010-06-23T19:07:57.410+00:002010-06-23T19:07:57.410+00:00Stephen Law said: "But those are non-moral ou...Stephen Law said: "But those are non-moral oughts. They are "hypothetical imperatives". If you want x, do y. But why should I want X?"<br /><br />Yes, you are correct, of course, but then as Aristotle argued, happiness in the only end for which there is no further explanation. It is an end in and of itself. <br /><br />So, if I want X, and X means holistic happiness, then I'll want to do Y.<br /><br />There is no mystery to what we want and we need not argue for it. <br /><br />Yes, there are self-destructive people who adopt a Freudian death wish, but why should that matter to public policy or ethics?<br /><br />Now don't get me wrong. Accepting what I said doesn't solve our ethical problems with science, per se, but I see no reason not to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-48609272946856359192010-06-23T19:02:18.835+00:002010-06-23T19:02:18.835+00:00I was a little confused by "I do not not exis...I was a little confused by "I do not not exist". I had to read it several times before I noticed the second "not". Perhaps putting the second one in italics would make it clearer.<br /><br />I wonder if Alister McGrath had apologised to Dawkins yet for his disgraceful lies.Burkenoreply@blogger.com