tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post760760845371986691..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Intro to book (part 2) for commentsStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62566686741806347942010-06-21T00:28:08.021+00:002010-06-21T00:28:08.021+00:00Hi, Claudio Marin here,
I don't get why, if...Hi, Claudio Marin here,<br /><br /> I don't get why, if there is a God, everybody must feel just fine.<br /> all the time.<br /><br /> Such an idea is all premised upon and follows from the assumption that God is benign and that benign manifests as everyone getting enough to eat, suffering no disease or violence or angst and so on. Pleasantville.<br /> And suffering, I think has to do with there being an individual entity which suffers---rejects certain feelings and experiences.<br /> But if there is a soul; if there is an entity which is apart from<br />the body and the mind in the body,<br />then suffering must be only a physical thing--not a soul thing. <br /> If the soul remains aloof from the physical and is, in effect, indestructible and untouchable by physical means then evil must be an illusion, if evil is that which causes suffering.<br /> And if the difference between suffering and non-suffering is the feeling that there is something that suffers--that rejects certain feelings and experiences as unpleasant, and wants only pleasant experiences---then it is just a subjective feeling that creates suffering. And if it is just a subjective feeling that is suffering, it is just a subjective feeling that is, in effect, evil.<br /> But since a subjective feeling is from the mind in the body--and the soul remains aloof--then really there is no evil apart from<br />the feeling on the physical level and no suffering at all on the soul level.<br /> If you truly believe that the soul is indestructible--unharmable<br />physically--then suffering does not belong to it--and you confuse<br />the soul's life with the body's.<br /> But if the soul itself can suffer--can have a feeling of unpleasantness--evil still is just a feeling.<br /> If the soul itself can be destroyed---so what? IF God is benign, as you say then existence apart from him is impossible and<br />soul is a temporary illusion.<br /> The whole evil problem--if you really believe it is a problem-- just shows a lack of spiritual conviction. If your argument is just to convince skeptics---well<br />why not just argue why supposed evil is only a pseudo-problem.<br /> If you are arguing because it is fun---well, say so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-61054981866166775672010-06-18T02:25:19.269+00:002010-06-18T02:25:19.269+00:00The preceding comment was mine. The context was a...The preceding comment was mine. The context was a discussion of the Argument from Contingency, and Russell cited some contemporary thinking in quantum physics to demonstrate that theoretical physicists, at least, were capable of conceiving of events with no cause.Tony Sidawaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2997603832557252642010-06-18T02:19:20.434+00:002010-06-18T02:19:20.434+00:00Non-temporal agency sounds like a close relative o...Non-temporal agency sounds like a close relative of Russell's rejection of the premise that the universe must have a cause, in his Third Programme debate with Father Frederick Copleston in 1948.<br /><br />After some to-ing and fro-ing about the nature of scientific research and the place of the assumption of causality in that, Russell finally agreed with Father Copleston's suggestion that he, Russell, did not think it was legitimate to ask what was the cause of the universe. They moved on to other topics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-9284059009723723762010-06-13T13:12:55.314+00:002010-06-13T13:12:55.314+00:00we do like your music Lady Gaga, but...
The B**B...we do like your music Lady Gaga, but...<br /><br /><br />The B**BQUAKE - 911<br /><br /><br />Let me show you the FATE OF TRAITORS...<br /><br /><br />http://www.loiterink.com/photos/products/182_3424_500x500.jpg<br /><br />they are incapable of telling the difference between SCIENTIFIC *FACT* AND RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL *TRUTH*... FATAL ERROR!<br /><br />they also preach a *VALUE FREE SCIENCE* called *POSITIVISM* that ignores the inequalities of wealth and power in capitalist civilization...<br /><br /><br /><br />for a sample taste of PZ Myers' GARBAGE...<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/sunday_sacrilege_imagine_no_he.php<br /><br /><br />HIJACKING IN PROGRESS!!!<br /><br />http://hawaiiwebgroup.com/maui-design/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/website-hijacking.jpg<br /><br /><br />HIJACKING IN PROGRESS!!!<br /><br />how can these HEADLESS IDIOTS BET AGAINST GOD!!!<br />________________________________________<br /><br /><br />what happens when you LOSE Pascal's Wager...<br /><br /><br />http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm<br /><br />_____________<br /><br /><br />you FIGHT PAPER MONSTERS...<br /><br />the blood and bodies of the atheist movement...<br /><br /><br />you mofos killed MICKEY MOUSE!!!!<br /><br /><br />this has more TRUTH then what Dawkins, Randi, Harris, Myers, and Shermer<br />combined have said in their entire lives...<br /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=5R2wE8Sduhs&playnext_from=TL&videos=hht1U_19anc&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_fresh%2Bdiv-1r-3-HM<br /><br /><br /><br />they tried to BULLDOZE the entire METAPHYSICAL DIMENSION...<br /><br />they LOST THE WAR......<br /><br />you have FORFEIT YOUR SOUL, shermer... you have become an object in the<br />material world, as you WISHED...<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU<br /><br />http://farm1.static.flickr.com/7/11792994_ffaaee87fa.jpg<br /><br />we're gonna smash that TV...<br /><br />They had become ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE AND OF GOD...<br />you pushed too much and *CROSSED THE LINE*<br /><br />degenerates (PZ) or children (HEMANT) - ATHEISTS!<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRRg2tWGDSY<br /><br />do you have anything to say, you STUPID LITTLE F*CKER?<br /><br />how about I tell you, Mr. Shermer, EVERYTHING YOU THINK ABOUT THE WORLD is<br /><br />*WRONG*<br /><br />THE BOOBQUAKE - 911!<br /><br />http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XNb3Q9Ek<br /><br />RUN, ATHEISTS, RUN!!!<br /><br />-------------------<br /><br />http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-information.html<br /><br />the 9th and FINAL RING of Dante's Inferno is designed for little blaspheming traitors like you...<br /><br />"This is the deepest level of hell, where the fallen angel Satan himself resides. His wings flap eternally, producing chilling cold winds that freeze the thick ice found in Cocytus..."<br /><br /><br />but at least FREE AIR CONDITIONING is included!DMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11389651479904502758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-72606438697544379262010-06-13T04:54:35.218+00:002010-06-13T04:54:35.218+00:00Why do so many people believe in God and/or in god...Why do so many people believe in God and/or in gods? There has to be something behind this? Do we have a spiritual/meaningful thirst that needs to be quenched?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33446085746606958302010-06-11T09:54:29.708+00:002010-06-11T09:54:29.708+00:00DSurber
Something probably needs to be done about...DSurber<br /><br />Something probably needs to be done about the Big Bang aspect. Perhaps the necessary clarification is that we are talking about the whole lot here the Universe with a capital "U" rather than just a universe (the one that sustains our existence, asteroids universe, pacman universe etc.) <br />With practically any proposed cosmology Big Bang, multiverse, brane world or whatever the theists God is omnipotent and can claim credit for creating it. <br />If the god-agent does its thing in another timelike dimension the problem still remains with when (in that reference frame) that particular timelike dimension came into being.<br /><br /><br />The question I think remains though. Does "temporal" implicitly refer to our local time dimension? I think it is legitimate to talk about "a mountain on Mars" as there is a local gravity field to define the base and summit but not to talk about "climbing a Martian Munro".wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13960290667430850972010-06-11T04:20:42.364+00:002010-06-11T04:20:42.364+00:00I have objected to the atemporal agency problem be...I have objected to the atemporal agency problem before because it ignores the possibility of other timelike dimensions. Wombat raises this objection again, but suggests that it is tied to the mention of the Big Bang. Mentioning the Big Bang might cue the reader to consider other timelike dimensions but to avoid this objection by omitting mention of the Big Bang is intellectually dishonest. Better to tackle it head on.<br /><br />It is trivial to imagine that our universe is embedded in some higher reality and that what we perceive as time is different from and unrelated to the timelike dimension of that higher reality. Consider the Asteroids video game. It simulates a universe with rules and a timelike dimension, but in our universe that timelike dimension can run at whatever speed and direction the game programmer chooses. An atheist in the Asteroids universe could make the atemporal agency argument; before a quarter is dropped in the machine there is no time in which god can act. Well, clearly the programmer of the game exists in another timelike dimension. The same reasoning applies equally well to our universe. The god-agent could exist in a separate timelike dimension in which our universe is embedded.<br /><br />This leaves one with an infinite regression. Better to address this directly than leave it as on obvious (at least to me) counterargument.<br /><br />DSurberAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-6747390604336750332010-06-10T20:39:08.388+00:002010-06-10T20:39:08.388+00:00Tony,
"Dark matter" and "dark ener...Tony,<br /><br />"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are more than simply place holders - they describe at least some of the physical properties of the thing they are holding the place for in terms of the expected lack of detectable emissions - dark - and the effects on the motion of galaxies. These things are not everyday things true and they may go the way of phlogiston but they have not yet been shown to be inherently self contradictory by definition.wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12003908382847920142010-06-10T20:22:14.732+00:002010-06-10T20:22:14.732+00:00Minor edit possibly -
"The concept of a moun...Minor edit possibly -<br /><br />"The concept of a mountain has its home with a spatial framework"<br /><br />shouldn't this be <br /><br />"The concept of a mountain has its home <i>within</i> a spatial framework"?<br /><br /><br />Something made me a little unhappy with the atemporal agency line though. Finally hit on what it was - its the way you get the Big Bang involved. The thing that nagged at me was that there are respectable cosmological theories that the treat our observable universe as regions within a higher dimensional space. Some of these extra dimensions can be treated in a similar way to time I think. In that case agency may be possible in another time-like direction. Now that is still not atemporal agency but it is agency taking place in another reference frame. It seems parochial in some way to restrict ourselves to our local time, although perhaps justified in that the language was developed for use in it and so "temporal" means "as defined by the time-like direction in which we have duration etc" But then isn't this the same as saying that the word "Mountain" implies "on Earth" and excludes topographical features on Mars? Anyhow I think it would be stronger if you left out the Big Bang and just said Creation or something similar which would include all the mind-boggling possible cosmologies. After all this is what theists are going to be claiming for God.<br /><br />Just a minor quibble but it did bug me for a while (local time).wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-81249634871301061292010-06-10T16:40:55.507+00:002010-06-10T16:40:55.507+00:00We also like to talk to inanimate objects - for in...We also like to talk to inanimate objects - for instance cursing at our computers and cars when they won't start. Most of us don't understand how exactly these work. <br />I have also seen theists use the analogy of a hotel room being prepared for us to explain the earth's capacity for life and especially humans. See apologist Sean McDowell for details.Michael Fugatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3518016193893803922010-06-10T15:18:50.214+00:002010-06-10T15:18:50.214+00:00re: evidential problem of evil: I wonder if it wou...re: evidential problem of evil: I wonder if it would be worth bringing up another theodicy - that suffering allows us to express the virtue of compassion and that this in some way outweighs or compensates for it. <br /><br />I always thought this was a line of reasoning we would find perverse if used in everyday life - if I murdered someone's husband, I couldn't claim that on balance I have committed a meritorious act because I have provided an opportunity for people to express compassion for his widow - yet this is what God does if he allows the same person to die of cancer. I'm not sure if this could be inverted in the same way as your other theodicies, though...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-45227312132163728882010-06-09T14:52:06.558+00:002010-06-09T14:52:06.558+00:00Are these two criticisms going to provide examples...Are these two criticisms going to provide examples for all eight strategies that you're going to cover? If not, wouldn't you be better providing examples in each chapter rather than in the introduction?<br /><br />I don't know that the non-temporal agency is a good example. The irrationality of the strategies, surely, is to avoid falsification of a position rather than to add verification. The problem of evil works as an example because it falsifies belief:<br /><br />1. If God then no evil<br />2. Loads of evil<br />3. No God (1,2 modus tollens)<br /><br />The non-temporal agency problem, though, is a problem for the theists premises. Rather than a direct counterargument it is an undercutting one. All that could be established is that the theist doesn't have enough reason for believing in God or that his argument against the atheist is insufficiently robust.<br /><br />No one has any idea what "dark matter” or “dark energy” are and , in this respect, they can be criticised in the same way that non-temporal agency can be criticised. But the upshot of this criticism is that we don’t really understand it, it may well be wrong and (in this respect) it’s at best a tentative suggestion. It doesn’t really show that the suggestion should not be held. Holding to a belief in the face of contradictiory evidence is “black hole-y”, holding onto a vague place-holding guess in the face of it being a vague place-holding guess isn’t.Tony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-74467699002088409642010-06-09T11:40:30.359+00:002010-06-09T11:40:30.359+00:00Rather than address such the problems in an honest...Rather than address such the problems in an honest and straightforward way, they involve attempting to immunize belief in God against such threats by means of obfuscation, evasion and .......... ?<br /><br />Could you post the bit that's missing please? Great stuff so far.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77669928609546579662010-06-09T11:39:56.586+00:002010-06-09T11:39:56.586+00:00On the fact that we can devise mirror theodicies f...On the fact that we can devise mirror theodicies for the hypothesis of a bad god, I suppose that the believer would respond that we have texts that appear to be revelations from a good god (the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon), but none, or none that should be taken seriously, that appear to come from a bad god (although Hesiod recounts some entertaining bad behaviour). So we only need to consider the hypothesis of a good god. I don’t claim that this is a good answer, but it is an answer.<br /><br />The problem of non-temporal agency is a big one. As you say, the standard responses amount to obfuscation and evasion. But a more sophisticated response deserves consideration (although I think it fails). In a recent discussion between AC Grayling and Tim Crane under the title “Atheists on religion”, Grayling made the interesting point that it is a mistake to start with the question of whether there is a god. We first need to ask what sort of a universe we inhabit, and what its ontological possibilities are. I don’t know exactly what Grayling had in mind, but one can envisage an answer which says that there is an ultimate reality, that is not only accommodating to but essentially divine, and that is nothing like the world as it appears to us as agents, or as it appears to us as physicists. Then the problem of non-temporal agency would fall away because it would be based on a misunderstanding. This approach is not Kantian, because it says specific things about the noumena, although not as specific as would be needed for any sensible person to take it seriously as a rival to a naturalistic world-view. I don’t know whether you intend to tackle such approaches.<br /><br />A podcast of the Grayling-Crane discussion is available here:<br /><br />http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/publicLecturesAndEvents/20100512_1830_atheistsOnReligion.mp3<br /><br />On the Devil, I recommend a hilarious novel by Glen Duncan called I, Lucifer. He tries out life on Earth for a while. He is immensely proud of having invented money, which leads you into sin whether you have it or lack it, and is most disappointed that ice cream, which tastes so good but is so bad for you, was not his idea.Richard Baronhttp://www.rbphilo.comnoreply@blogger.com