tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post3488524562132230082..comments2024-02-26T03:25:06.471+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Notes for responding to Craig's possible criticism of my evil god challengeStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20403780090946421362014-05-11T14:21:51.983+00:002014-05-11T14:21:51.983+00:00Also the Bible says reason is not the way to see i...Also the Bible says reason is not the way to see if God exists. Says has made foolish our reason. 1 Corinthians 1:18-21, 23-25 NIV<br /><br />For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.<br /><br />So Bible says of you want to know if God exists don't use reductive arguments (that is Greek thinking). Instead look at the cross of Jesus and the proof for God lies in the combination of perfect justice and love at the crucifixion of Jesus. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23317680612735987502014-05-11T13:59:28.846+00:002014-05-11T13:59:28.846+00:00Also if Craig says you cannot deduce a good God fr...Also if Craig says you cannot deduce a good God from observation then what does he do with this?Romans 1:19-20 NIV<br /><br />since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-27380948871891135622014-05-11T13:38:28.114+00:002014-05-11T13:38:28.114+00:00Seems to me Laws argument relies on assuming that ...Seems to me Laws argument relies on assuming that good and evil are just kind of equal, 2 sides of the same coin. So what you can say of one you can say equally of the other. I'm not sure this is right? Isn't it live saying truth and lies are 2 sides of the same coin. So if "there is no truth" is self refuting then "there are no lies" is also self refuting - which it is not. Doesn't seem to follow that you can automatically treat opposites in the same way. So if God by definition is the explanatory stopping point it would seem that we need to appeal to no higher authority yo explain a good God but we would in order to explain an evil God. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-90949835232989245542012-11-19T06:46:09.915+00:002012-11-19T06:46:09.915+00:00Late reply!
Craig claims it as logic (or at least...Late reply!<br /><br />Craig claims it as logic (or at least reason). Even if we accepted his premises, provisionally, we still find that the supposed logic (or reason) fails to bring us to his conclusions. So yes, his premises are unsupported, but his logic is also bad.neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32243339458126599062012-08-11T17:53:19.680+00:002012-08-11T17:53:19.680+00:00I was delighted to learn of Dr. Law's Evil God...I was delighted to learn of Dr. Law's <i>Evil God challenge</i> in October of 2011 when he debated the preeminent 'used-god salesman' William Lane Craig. The reason is that, though I was previously unfamiliar with the Evil God challenge prior to the debate, I had come to think of a very similar response to Craig's moral argument quite independently as far as I'm aware (one never knows where one might have inadvertently drawn some inspiration).<br /><br />The response came to me when I trained my attention on just how inconsistent Craig's apologetic against the problem of evil is with his argument that objective moral values--if they do, in fact, exist--would somehow prove that the God of the Christians exists. The bottom line of Craig's moral argument is simple: if objective 'good' actually exists, then a good God necessarily exists.<br /><br />It seems to me that it follows from the logic of Craig's reasoning on this that if the existence of 'good' proves that a good God exists, that the existence of evil would prove that an evil God exists (the point, here, isn't to suggest that either of these 'arguments' provide any valid basis for believing that a God of any type exists, the point is that the logic of Craig's argument for the existence of God based on the existence of objective 'good' is a non sequitur since the same logic proves the existence of an evil God based on the existence of objective 'evil'.<br /><br />Of course, Craig wants to assert that the existence of evil also proves that a good God exists since we couldn't have anything like objective evil unless we first had something that is objectively good. Unfortunately for Craig admirers, this is just flagrant special pleading since it is just as valid to say that the existence of good actually proves that an evil God exists since there could be no 'good' unless there first existed a 'necessarily evil' being to ontologically ground evil.<br /><br />I think what Stephen's very well thought-out Evil God Challenge shows is that Craig's moral argument gets us nowhere. Objective moral values, if they exist in any sense at all, have no bearing on the question of whether or not there exists a deity or supernatural entity of any kind. Good is still good, and evil is still evil whether or not God actually exists.Charles Baileynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-41457701094616713822012-06-24T16:50:23.580+00:002012-06-24T16:50:23.580+00:00Neopolitan, I wonder if your criticism here doesn&...Neopolitan, I wonder if your criticism here doesn't actually boil down to saying that Craig needs to provide independent support for some claim like 'unless God, no morality'-- needs to, that is, if he means to convince anyone to whom this claim's truth is hardly obvious. That is probably something worth saying, but it seems to me that it can be said more simply and with less potential for confusion than by your criticism of Craig for being, supposedly, "pseudo-logical." I don't think the real point (for you, generally) is about logical form in Craig.Michael Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834928837774294668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54238022963085293312012-06-24T04:24:06.575+00:002012-06-24T04:24:06.575+00:00Hi Stephen,
I am in the process of systematically...Hi Stephen,<br /><br />I am in the process of systematically identifying the errors in William Lane Craig's arguments (<a href="http://neophilosophical.blogspot.com/2012/06/logic-of-apologist.html" rel="nofollow">neophilosophical</a>).<br /><br />With respect to his Argument from Morality, there is an attempt to confuse and distract, with the double use of "not". His argument, in logical form, is:<br /><br />Premise - If not A, then not B.<br />Assertion - B.<br />Conclusion - Therefore A.<br /><br />These forms of argument is usually used with a general, proven statement in the Premise, then making a specific statement in the Assertion to make a specific Conclusion. For example:<br /><br />Premise - If there is not (at least) a single cloud in the sky, then it is not raining.<br />Assertion - It is raining right now.<br />Conclusion - Therefore, there is (at least) a single cloud in the sky right now.<br /><br />Craig doesn't do this with his pseudo-logic. His argument is functionally equivalent to:<br /><br />Premise - If not squarks, then not doosits.<br />Assertion - Doosits.<br />Conclusion - Therefore, squarks.<br /><br />or, alternatively, without the use of "not":<br /><br />Premise - If doosits, then squarks.<br />Assertion - Doosits.<br />Conclusion - Therefore, squarks.<br /><br />So long as you have not supported your Premise, adequately, this not functionally different to arguing:<br /><br />Squarks.<br />Therefore, squarks.<br /><br />Or in theist terms:<br /><br />God exists.<br />Therefore, God exists.<br /><br />Not a particularly satisfying argument, right?<br /><br />Constructive criticism of my efforts to address all of his "logic" would be much appreciated.<br /><br />I also extend the offer to comment to your readers.<br /><br />/neopolitan<br />neophilosophical.blogspot.comneopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11413360354718839542012-01-14T06:49:20.635+00:002012-01-14T06:49:20.635+00:00Outstanding! Generally My partner and i never ever...Outstanding! Generally My partner and i never ever study whole content articles however the approach anyone composed this information is simply remarkable this also held my personal desire for reading and i also loved that.Runescape Goldhttp://www.4rsgold.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-5313310103324656682011-11-13T03:23:40.111+00:002011-11-13T03:23:40.111+00:00A falling short (sin), or privation (evil) [sin=ev...A falling short (sin), or privation (evil) [sin=evil], of the way things are supposed to be (the good), cannot exist unless there really is a way things are supposed to be. So--first exists the way things are supposed to be, without which a falling short (sin), or privation (evil), is impossible (again, sin=evil). That good--that 'way'--is God. God, because he is omnipotent, cannot fall short of himself, cannot be a privation of himself, cannot depart from the way things are supposed to be (himself). Such falling short, privation, departing--all of those things are weakness.Maryann Spikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11252412506351650920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12534282456389932992011-11-05T15:47:43.479+00:002011-11-05T15:47:43.479+00:00(Sorry I don't mean to come off as one who is ...(Sorry I don't mean to come off as one who is clogging the comment section)<br /><br /><br />Actually it looks as though Steve Frenchmen beat me to the punch<br /><br />Anyways I find this to be the best objection to Dr. Law's Evil God.<br /><br />I commend Dr. Law on opening or at least bringing awareness to a new topic however, and I believe this isn't "fully" over yet. <br /><br />Peter Millicin and Stephen Law are skeptics I can respect, I can't say the same for a few others, however every group has their bad apples.<br /><br />Dr. Law is still one of the Top Philosophers in the world, though I disagree with his atheistic supernaturalism, agnosticism, pan-deism...whatever view he holds.<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/laws-evil-god-challenge.htmlCornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30938261683462655092011-11-05T15:41:05.139+00:002011-11-05T15:41:05.139+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Cornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14722744677833778972011-11-05T15:36:32.835+00:002011-11-05T15:36:32.835+00:00How so?
I'm implying that Evil is a privati...How so? <br /><br />I'm implying that Evil is a privation of Good, and not the other way around, because it can't work the other way around.<br /><br />You can't use an inverse version of Plantinga's Free-Will Defense on Dr. Law's Evil God efficiently<br /><br />Dr. Law should also read this objection from Professor Feser as it seems to hit home.<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/laws-evil-god-challenge.html <br /><br />Perhaps you are missing something PaulJCornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-25715492697256704072011-11-05T15:11:07.454+00:002011-11-05T15:11:07.454+00:00It seems to me that L2Philosophy is making Dr. Law...It seems to me that <i>L2Philosophy</i> is making Dr. Law's points for him...Paul S. Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15580170289410948764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-8958696117779735192011-11-05T15:04:40.857+00:002011-11-05T15:04:40.857+00:00I'm going basically to call you out on your bl...I'm going basically to call you out on your bluff<br /><br />Stephen your challenge is already in question once someone uses “The problem of Good” on this Evil God of yours. <br /><br />I’m shocked that a top philosopher can’t see that all one has to do to put your Evil God objection into question is call your bluff, and ask why this Evil God is so pathetic at his doing job?<br /><br />The Logical problem of Evil (Alvin Plantinga) answers the logical question on why does a good God allow Evil, but when we flip the scenario around to assert an Evil God I don’t see any reasonable answers on why this Evil God of yours allows Good in the world? <br /><br />Your Evil God doesn’t appear to be a God that is practicing his maximally Evil attributes efficiently.<br /><br />You mention an afterlife which doesn’t make any sense at all, here’s why:<br /><br />Why would an Evil God have an afterlife in the form of a heaven and a Hell to begin with? What is the purpose when one would think we would all experience a place like Hell right off the bat? <br /><br />So in regards to your Evil God, are we looking at a scenario in which a World that Evil reigns supreme by humans who serve this God, and those Evil human-beings get rewarded for their tasks or is it a world where everyone get screwed in the end, because their are no laws to follow?<br /><br />Even if this God did lay down the rules, why one trust this God if rewards were presented?<br /><br />So I’d like to hear your reply on this, because right now I’m just calling your bluff head on, While Looking around and wondering why there are so may happy people that I know off-hand? Meanwhile understanding why people suffer in this world, but I don't see how if the tables were turned why there would be a shred a good allowed in the world from an Evil God.<br /><br />The only answer I could come up with is building a person goodness and then God breaking them down, but wouldn't we see a totally different world than what we live in today?Cornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-74268101934324510292011-10-28T06:03:24.806+00:002011-10-28T06:03:24.806+00:00Hi Dr. Law,
If you get rid of the concept of evil ...Hi Dr. Law,<br />If you get rid of the concept of evil and replace it with suffering, does that mean that suffering is not evil and is completely stripped of any moral property?<br />If that is the case, then why would the presence of something that is not recognized as either good or evil (i.e. completely without moral property) be evidence against God?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-84988559590871226142011-10-25T10:00:39.825+00:002011-10-25T10:00:39.825+00:00@Paul McC, "WLC doesn't engage in that ki...@Paul McC, "WLC doesn't engage in that kind of macho talk."<br /><br />Whoa! You haven't paid a lot of attention to him, now have you?<br /><br />WLC is notoriously dishonest, and actively misrepresents the other side's arguments, then thumps his chest and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YMhbDqnVog#t=2m20s" rel="nofollow">declares victory after trying to ridicule the opponent rather than addressing their points</a>.teeteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07485984102616349567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-25621149182560899242011-10-24T17:39:47.069+00:002011-10-24T17:39:47.069+00:00I was thinking about your Evil God yesterday and I...I was thinking about your Evil God yesterday and I think I came up with an argument for why an Anti-God (I prefer that title given the derivation of the word 'God') is self defeating. An incompetent God who mollycoddled all his humans before sending them to Heaven would still broadly function as a concept, but an incompetent Anti-God?He would torment his victims too much removing all trace of light, but then why would humans not kill themselves? If all that follows after death is more suffering then Hell ceases to have any meaning unless it is the opposite, eternal pleasure. If by contrast Anti-God retained Heaven after death as a reward for unlimited cruelty practiced on earth then not only would he barely count as "Anti-God" but more to the point, human lives would be very brief - kill as many people as you can to get your Heavenly reward. A get out could be that humans are rewarded for torturing people but punished for killing them, but this would count as a fudge and lives would still in all probably be cut very short.<br /><br />Now let's turn to the real God whose existence we are debating and who has created a world of both good and evil. According to a Christian and Islamic theology, if you behave well towards others, you will be rewarded with Heaven and Christianity adds that you have to recognize that you are a fallible human being. Anti-God reverses this, rewarding cruelty with Heaven, which is even more unremitting torment. But what about Hell? What about people who display unremitting kindness towards others? They are rewarded with a Hell of… even more unremitting torment! Alternatively Anti-God could dispense with an afterlife altogether, but given that free will is a concept largely disputed by biologists and scientists, and that tsunamis and the like can also be explained scientifically, God at this point becomes almost irrelevant - a deist world rather than one presided over by an interventionist deity. Alternatively Hell could be eternal bliss but that makes an absurdity to the idea of Anti-God being evil, and limits Anti-God's freedom to create suffering on earth, lest men commit suicide and go to a Hell of eternal bliss. Alternatively Anti-God could lie. In fact, if God is evil then that is precisely what he has done through books like the Bible, Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.<br />. So man behaves himself expecting bliss in the next world only to find endless torment. However here is the problem? God can only do this by lying to man. If men knew the truth they would be tempted to kill themselves there and then. Yet anyone who has read the Marquis de Sade knows that the pleasure of watching someone finding that they have been duped is nothing to the cruel pleasure of watching children quake in fear. So again, Anti-God has less autonomy than Good God who is able to tell the truth to his children. This matters as the definition of a God is both omniscience and omnipotent. From this I infer that a good God is far more likely than an evil God and the heart of your objections to William Lane Craig collapse.<br /><br />I have not incidentally emailed these comments to Bill Craig, sending them to you first off. I have not studied philosophy so approach this with appropriate trepidation. If you and other bloggers are truth seekers, however, you will consider them and respond to them. If you do not, then I will assume you support atheism in the unquestioning way that someone supports Aston Villa, and I will feel justified in sending them to Bill Craig.Steve Frenchmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04897829392100256025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88820808945834852532011-10-22T17:07:20.751+00:002011-10-22T17:07:20.751+00:00Hi Classicist
But the Jews wouldn't just rela...Hi Classicist<br /><br />But the Jews wouldn't just relax what they believed were God-given laws for the sake of Gentiles without believing they had divine authority to do it. It seems to me if they didn't believe Jesus was living they mustn't have believed God was living either! <br /><br />What is basic is that all the evidence we have shows that the New Testament is substantially the same as what was written, and nothing of any import is in doubt. These texts show a real shift in the thinking of these first century Jews. You have Paul's writings in Colossians in which he says days and feasts etc. are the shadows that find their fulfilment in Christ, and his letter to the Philippians in which he says circumcision is now mere mutilation, and the letter to the Hebrews written before the destruction of the temple in which all Christians are viewed as priests, entering within the veil, and Christ's sacrifice has brought an end to all sacrifices. I hardly think the first century church could be described as winners, and so feel your scepticism is not justified, especially given the fact that I feel their claims and their Lord can be put to the test experientially!<br /><br />I've never commented so much on a blog before, and may bow out now (it's possibly only you and me reading these comments now anyway!), so I'll give you the last word. Nice corresponding with you. <br /><br />All the best<br /><br />PaulPaul McCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11630329376886168262011-10-22T13:10:39.868+00:002011-10-22T13:10:39.868+00:00Paul McC:
Those are from the texts that we have n...Paul McC:<br /><br />Those are from the texts that we have now. They are not necessarily the original forms and cannot simply be taken as what Jesus's original disciples actually did. This is basic.<br /><br />The texts we have are from the winning faction - not surprisingly that faction wanted to relax Jewish law to appeal to Gentiles. (and yes there was by this point a tradition of "Hellenistic" Judaism which complicates the question of what the tradition really was for any given group.)Classicistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-9965610468539637322011-10-21T21:43:26.553+00:002011-10-21T21:43:26.553+00:00Hello again Dan L
When I said a good argument doe...Hello again Dan L<br /><br />When I said a good argument doesn't have to be absolutely certain, but just have premises more plausible than their negations, you said WLC likes to say this but it's not necessarily true. That's where I got it. <br /><br />Eye witness testimony to an empty tomb - John 20. The Bible is only one source since the 4th century - it's a collection of documents, I know you know that, so I'm wondering what you were getting at. The disciples wouldn't have concluded a resurrection merely from an empty tomb, but they certainly wouldn't have concluded it without it. The fact that monotheistic Jews would worship a man who had been crucified and continue to believe in Him as Messiah risen from the dead takes some explaining. My point was, whatever Dr Law did on Monday, he didn't do that. <br /><br />Hello Classicist - Peter's vision in Acts 11 leading to the abandonment of dietary laws is one example. Paul's refusal to have Titus circumcised was endorsed by Peter, John and James, according to Galatians 2.<br /><br />Good night<br /><br />PaulPaul McCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12802441509576420042011-10-21T16:48:37.481+00:002011-10-21T16:48:37.481+00:00Paul McC:
It's not proven that Jesus's or...Paul McC:<br /><br />It's not proven that Jesus's original disciples abandoned Jewish custom in any way, shape, or form.Classicistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85968441520771861772011-10-21T16:09:55.782+00:002011-10-21T16:09:55.782+00:00But my point wasn't even that bluster is wrong...<i>But my point wasn't even that bluster is wrong, I'm saying it's wrong here, because just saying "it ain't necessarily so" isn't a good reason for believing it's not so, and just waving your hand and saying weird things happen doesn't seem to be an adequate response to the evidence of an empty tomb, transformed disciples embracing a non-Jewish belief and abandoning the Jewish rituals.</i><br /><br />None of that even remotely qualifies as "evidence" under any reasonable definition. You have no eye-witness accounts of an empty tomb (even if you did, grave robbing, especially of celebrities, was quite common in the Mediterranean at the time). You have a single, dubious source (yes, the Bible is ONE source) that doesn't even seem to be intended as historical attesting to the empty tomb.<br /><br />If even one historian contemporary to the events of the gospels corroborated in any way the gospel accounts you'd have evidence, but none of them so much as mentioned Jesus of Nazareth -- even the historians making long lists of apocalyptic semitic prophets. But there is no such historical evidence.<br /><br /><i>I'll not get into your argument about the Greeks, colours and physics, because unless you can prove what you say is absolutely and necessarily true, then, according to your reasoning, I shouldn't believe it!!</i><br /><br />If you think that then you have misunderstood my arguments -- in fact, I would argue that nothing can ever be proven absolutely and necessarily true (I honestly don't see how you got what you did from what I wrote). It is possible for a proposition and its negation to both be false, or more likely, it is possible for neither to mean anything at all. More answers are wrong than right, but even more answers are "not even wrong." Thus, skepticism of purely philosophical arguments is always warranted. <br /><br />-Dan L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-92200922847074060362011-10-21T11:49:57.411+00:002011-10-21T11:49:57.411+00:00Hi Dan L
A couple of quick things: of course ther...Hi Dan L<br /><br />A couple of quick things: of course there's bluster on both sides, but my remark was addressed to Dr Law saying he demolished the arguments. WLC doesn't engage in that kind of macho talk. But my point wasn't even that bluster is wrong, I'm saying it's wrong here, because just saying "it ain't necessarily so" isn't a good reason for believing it's not so, and just waving your hand and saying weird things happen doesn't seem to be an adequate response to the evidence of an empty tomb, transformed disciples embracing a non-Jewish belief and abandoning the Jewish rituals. <br /><br />I'll not get into your argument about the Greeks, colours and physics, because unless you can prove what you say is absolutely and necessarily true, then, according to your reasoning, I shouldn't believe it!!Paul McCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88105589014706950552011-10-20T19:54:38.733+00:002011-10-20T19:54:38.733+00:00It's a bit sad to read this bluster about you ...<i>It's a bit sad to read this bluster about you demolishing his arguments. I would describe it more like a girly slap at his arguments: </i><br /><br />I could say the same thing about all the WLC fanboys. I may be a little biased, but it seems to me your side does even more sneering and posturing than the atheists. Of course, since none of the posturing advances the conversation at all one wonders if you might just be trolling?<br /><br /><i>KCA - you ignored; moral argument - you said we don't *know* objective morals exist apart from God or exist at all (missing the point that a good argument just needs the points to be more plausible than their negations, not absolutely certain);</i><br /><br />WLC likes to say that but it's not necessarily true. The ancient Greek skeptics famously had a slogan roughly translated as: "Neither one," which was shorthand for the style of debate in which they would argue that their opponent's claims must not be true...and then do a 180 degree turn and argue that the <i>negation</i> of their opponent's claims cannot be true. There are many propositions for which neither the positive nor negative case are true. For example, "This object is the color pink." Color blind folks might describe the object as "orange." In reality, color terms are matched to observed wavelengths of light in a decidedly arbitrary way (this is proven by studies done with non-industrial cultures in which people have very different color discrimination abilities than westerners). <br /><br />More subtly, I can say "this action is good," but it doesn't necessarily follow that either the statement or the negation is false. If "good" is a subjective value rather than a metaphysical absolute then good for the goose doesn't have to be good for the gander. This even applies in science: "Phlogiston exists." Phlogiston doesn't really exist in terms of being its own ontological entity, but one can model phlogiston as a lack of oxygen and under that model phlogiston does, indeed, exist. This is similar to the trick in solid state physics in which you can call a lack of an electron a positive charge even though it really isn't anything at all.<br /><br /><i> resurrection - you're "argument" seemed to be weird stuff happens That we can't explain - hardly a demolition job.</i><br /><br />It's a fairly subtle argument, actually, and not widely enough appreciated. We have six billion people on earth right now. Say each has an "experience" every three seconds. Then every minute there are 120 billion human experiences. That means we can expect to see an event with probability of about 1 over 100 billion every few minutes. It's not weird that weird things happen, it would be weird if weird things didn't happen.<br /><br />So given that weird, unexplainable things happen all the time and furthermore that we expect this to be true, the simplest explanation for a weird, unexplainable one-off unrepeatable event is that it is due to paredoilia, an invented memory (a surprisingly and disturbingly common phenomenon), or some other variety of self delusion. <br /><br />-Dan L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-71482506107547886972011-10-19T23:26:40.648+00:002011-10-19T23:26:40.648+00:00I find your use of the word "run" as in ...I find your use of the word "run" as in "to run an argument" dissmisive of philosophy and more liek political language to just try and "beat" someone by using whatever you can instead of trying to work out the truth.<br /><br />Also the use of the words "ken" and "gerrymandering" although I understood them I am sure could be exchanged in a formal debate especially when the latter is too out of context to make proper sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com