tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post1593771049946007479..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: My Favorite Apologetic ArgumentsRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-17195020058443867552016-12-13T15:30:28.610-05:002016-12-13T15:30:28.610-05:00I think you might be missing the point on the weak...I think you might be missing the point on the weakness criterion (I assume this is what you were responding to); after all, I was willing to substitute "God does not exist," and a disjunction is true just in case at least one of its disjuncts are true, so any atheist should agree both: a) that the argument is valid and sound, and b) that it's a weak argument. Substitute any position you hold that's even remotely controversial for the first disjunction, and you have the same scenario.<br /><br />Yes, that B-theories don't affirm temporal becoming is my point: but people discuss causality independently of which theory is true, and have for quite some time (pun intended)! Most philosophers aren't taking causality from A/B theory; indeed, there is no universally accepted *account* of causality in philosophy, even if we have the basic idea of "bringing about," and this is the relevant notion at work in the kalam.<br /><br />Now it's logically valid, but (1) is far less plausible than the kalam, and if (2) depends on the B-theory, again, B-theorists accept that there is causality (see the majority of philosophers of time, who are B-theorists but who don't deny causality as "bringing about;" also see philosophers of mind who discuss the "pairing problem," such that something is causally paired with some other thing based on spatiotemporal location and other physical properties.).<br /><br />It's not circular; it's tautological. I'm not arguing that God is good because he's loving. That's something you've imputed to me. I'm arguing God is good because his nature is identical to the good. This is not circular. In answer to your question, it's because that is what it <i>is</i> to be loving! Remember the dialectic: the moral argument, the euthyphro, the grounded-in-nature response, the "circular" reply, the explanation of goodness-as-primitive concept, the reply that "the claim is grounded in circular logic." <br /><br />This "grounding" is either ontological or epistemological. If ontological, as the Euthyphro plausibly requires, there's no problem: God's nature is the ontology, and there's nothing implausible or inherently impossible (as of yet in the dialectic, anyway) about it. If epistemological, it doesn't go to the Euthyphro ("tell us how it is that God's nature is the good!"); suppose I don't know how it is--what does this tell us? Nothing, really.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-27059965578868973212016-12-13T13:15:33.590-05:002016-12-13T13:15:33.590-05:00I don't think that argument is valid, it certa...I don't think that argument is valid, it certainly isn't sound. The first premise is of course wrong, and so its conclusion would be based on a false premise. So it doesn't meet the criteria of a good argument: true premises <i>and </i>valid logic.<br /><br />For the B-theory, there are no models of the B-theory where temporal becoming is real. Those only exist in A-theories (presentism, possibilism). If a philosopher affirms causality on a B-theory, they will most likely define causality as I did, which is a completely different notion than would exist on an A-theory, and isn't "really" causality as it's typically understood. It's just a pattern in spacetime.<br /><br />For the anti-KCA, how about this version:<br /><br />1. Everything that doesn't begin to exist has no cause<br />2. The universe didn't begin to exist<br />3. Therefore, the universe doesn't have a cause<br /><br />Logically valid?<br /><br />For the morality dialogue, claiming it is "definitional" doesn't get you out of the problem as far as I can see. You're just defining god as loving and all you have is circular logic to ground that. If you grant circular logic in principle, then the atheist can use it too to ground his ethical logic. In order to claim a god is necessarily good, you need an external standard of good to compare it to, otherwise you will necessarily end up grounding this claim in circular logic (e.g. god is good because he's loving, loving is good because god is loving.) For example, if I asked you why is being loving good, what would your answer be?<br /><br />I'm simply saying that the moral argument doesn't convince the vast majority of philosophers (or atheists) because we have really good reasons why its logic is flawed and for rejecting it on so many levels. <br /><br />Anyway, thanks again for this interesting dialogue!The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-54067229428309095492016-12-13T10:38:44.511-05:002016-12-13T10:38:44.511-05:00I hope you have a great day also! :) I think the a...I hope you have a great day also! :) I think the analysis of weak arguments is probably not correct. Couldn't someone construct an argument that is both valid and has true premises, but nonetheless is a bad or weak argument? "Either God exists or the moon is made of green cheese; the moon is not made of green cheese; therefore, God exists." The premises are true and the form is logically valid, but this is a terrible argument (we can just change one of the disjuncts to "God does not exist" for atheists, and the atheist should agree this argument is just as bad).<br /><br />As to the B-theory, this is really a misnomer (as is A-theory; most people, myself included, are guilty of this reference), as these are A and B theories, plural. The key in an A and B theories are whether temporal becoming is real. Thus, while your explanation is an example of *a* B-theory, it is not an example inimical to *all B-theories simpliciter*. Most philosophers of time will, pace Hume, affirm causality, even if denying temporal becoming.<br /><br />I am saying that the anti-KCA argument is logically invalid. The formulation you have used mirrors the original Craig formulation in its major premise, which is a categorical syllogism. On categorical syllogisms, they are of the (relevantly valid) form:<br /><br />1. All X is Y.<br />2. a is X.<br />Therefore:<br />3. a is Y.<br /><br />or, negatively (but still valid):<br />1. All X is Y.<br />4. a is not Y.<br />Therefore:<br />5. a is not X.<br /><br />The anti-KCA is of the form:<br /><br />1. All X is Y.<br />6. a is not X.<br />Therefore<br />7. a is not Y.<br /><br />This is invalid. An argument is invalid just in case its premises do not logically necessitate the conclusion. To put it less abstractly, consider the following:<br /><br />A. All men are mortal.<br />B. Jane is not a man.<br />C. Therefore, Jane is not mortal.<br /><br />This is invalid, because (C) is not logically guaranteed to follow from (A-B). Lest any concerns over the intent (originally, it meant "humankind"), substitute an alien. An alien maybe could be immortal, but they could be mortal as well. Thus, the invalidity. And the same follows for the argument above.<br /><br />God is loving because this is definitional. That's not circular, as we're not trying to provide an *explanatory account* that relies on anything outside of God's necessity. Remember, the dialectic is that somehow God doesn't account for morality or it's not objective, but we have answered that. The reply is that "it's circular," but there's nothing circular about God's necessary nature being what it is--there's no further analysis of "necessity" beyond its being the case in all possible scenarios (even if we eschew possible worlds talk). There's nothing from this that means goodness can't inhere in God's nature or that such talk is meaningless. And that burden falls to the objector. What I claimed was that this doesn't appear typically in academic literature, and one or two articles are consistent with this claim.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-14630066093584424812016-12-12T17:42:54.584-05:002016-12-12T17:42:54.584-05:00Thank you too for your reply. To hopefully clarify...Thank you too for your reply. To hopefully clarify a few things, I'm certainly not saying an argument is weak because I or others don't accept it. The weakness of an argument is solely based on its validity or the truth of its premises. On the B-theory of time, nothing technically has a cause, nothing in the universe, and neither the universe as a whole. Now what I mean by this is that on the B-theory what causality really is is the relationships of intersecting worldtubes as they precede or intertwine with one another in spacetime; they're a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions. At the fundamental level, the word "cause" really should be replaced by the word "explanation" or "relationship." The A-theory notion of something must cause a thing to physically exist is wrong, and you're still assuming that here. I'm not sure how versed your are in science, but there is abundant literature on this.<br /><br />There is nothing wrong the the anti- KCM argument I mentioned as far as I can tell. I'd love it if you fleshed out your criticism more. Are you saying it isn't logically valid?<br /><br />On the Euthyphro's dilemma, the trilemma is used to show that the third option you try and offer doesn't work because you cannot logically ground it without making a circular argument that lacks intelligibility. For example, is God loving because being loving is good or is being loving good because God is loving? I don't see how you can answer this without circular logic that lacks intelligibility. It seems to me, all you have is an illogical assertion. There has been academic work on this. See Jeremy Koons' paper on the Euthyphro: http://faculty.georgetown.edu/koonsj/papers/Euthyphro.pdf<br /><br />I look forward to any responses you have. Have a great day!<br />The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-23140674858316394582016-12-12T11:58:29.262-05:002016-12-12T11:58:29.262-05:00Thanks for the reply! Here's a few issues that...Thanks for the reply! Here's a few issues that are plaguing this: First, it doesn't follow that because someone doesn't accept an argument, it is weak. Most professional philosophers will tell you this. Next, kalam-style arguments are argument families, and the universe's front-edge can be caused (this is a strange assertion otherwise). Third, your "anti" version of the kalam is just logically invalid (in syllogistic logic). This is not the case with the KCA itself. Next, this just isn't Euthyphro's dilemma, and this is demonstrable. What you're referring to is some kind of contemporary adaptation, and not one typically appearing in academic literature (I am willing to be corrected on this, if several journal articles or peer-reviewed anthologies from respected publishers are present. Monographs are less convincing, with some exceptions--say Oxford Press and the like). When one responds to the Euthyphro, one isn't "making an argument." One is simply providing a third option: morality inheres in God's nature. It's really not controversial, nor arbitrary, that if some x is x then it is x. It's difficult to see why that would refute the moral argument.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-81826786614956442232016-12-11T17:33:07.713-05:002016-12-11T17:33:07.713-05:00I can understand why you feel that I am ignorant o...I can understand why you feel that I am ignorant of the academic literature, but it's because I am familiar with the academic literature that I think the arguments are weak. Before I was I thought they were stronger. Few in the academic world are convinced of these arguments.<br /><br />One thing you have to note is that the KCA itself assumes the A theory of time, and by making the argument, one is assuming the A theory of time. The KCA is not made on a neutral position on time. On the B theory the KCA cannot hold because the universe doesn't begin to exist (which the KCA explicitly claims), and the popular notion of causality that you require for a first cause doesn't exist. I can even restate a version of the KCA as such:<br /><br />1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause<br />2. The universe didn't begin to exist<br />3. Therefore, the universe doesn't have a cause<br /><br />The Euthyphro dilemma is not refuted, but it is actually a trilemma, not really a dilemma. It makes it so that you cannot avoid hitting one of these 3 options: (1) morality is arbitrarily decided by god, (2) make a circular argument, (3) morality exists independently of god. What is goodness, and how do you determine it? Can you do this while avoiding all 3 above?The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-41739787810465891762016-12-11T14:03:53.165-05:002016-12-11T14:03:53.165-05:00I'm afraid you're revealing your ignorance...I'm afraid you're revealing your ignorance of the relevant academic literature. It's OK to reject the arguments, but to claim they're all "weak" and then provide weak objections that have already been answered elsewhere isn't going to convince me. For some relevant examples: I haven't "assumed" the A-theory is true; it didn't even come up here. But more relevantly, all you have to do is on the most popular conception of a B-theory, just reformulate the premise to ask about the front edge of the universe. It's still a kalam-style argument that establishes the existence of a First Cause, etc.<br /><br />Second, the moral argument isn't refuted by the Euthyphro dilemma; that one's had an answer for centuries (e.g., God is neither "under" the law nor "above" it; but the moral law inheres in his nature--abstractly, that collection of properties of goodness, and thus evil is what is opposed to or absent from, in a sense, God). I hope this helps!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-44535888412358674512016-12-04T13:39:14.393-05:002016-12-04T13:39:14.393-05:00They are very weak arguments. The KCA is refuted, ...They are very weak arguments. The KCA is refuted, among other things, by the B-theory of time; you've just assumed the A-theory is true, as all proponents of this argument do. And the moral argument is refuted by the Euthyphro dilemma and the pluralism argument, among other things. So neither argument works to achieve its conclusion.The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-77953424093825040972016-08-07T23:02:18.257-04:002016-08-07T23:02:18.257-04:00That's awesome! I've found the moral argum...That's awesome! I've found the moral argument at least resonates with people's basic intuitions, if nothing else!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-62291884225087684982016-08-07T23:01:58.638-04:002016-08-07T23:01:58.638-04:00Hey man! Technically I do use them (the moral argu...Hey man! Technically I do use them (the moral argument I referenced above counts as one, as God is the necessary precondition of morality). However, I tend not to use transcendental arguments, mostly because practitioners tend to confuse epistemology and ontology, and often make their presentations in a question-begging way. Of course, this is no fault of the argument. And I am very sympathetic to the truth of these transcendental arguments! :) So I like them, but do not use them often.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-23119912080043548532016-08-06T22:59:19.739-04:002016-08-06T22:59:19.739-04:00These are my two favorite as well! :DThese are my two favorite as well! :Diceknighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659752372996304733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-80240375045113075252016-08-06T22:49:46.203-04:002016-08-06T22:49:46.203-04:00I understand. Do you ever use transcendental argum...I understand. Do you ever use transcendental arguments as part of your apologetic arsenal? I have personally found them to be very powerful arguments, especially when talking with atheists. If you think about it, transcendental arguments, if successful would undercut any objection against the Christian position since all argumentation presupposes logic, and therefore God (at least this is what the transcendental argument seeks to accomplish). At any rate, keep up the good work sir. Many Blessings!!!Elias Ayalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01945359447099996840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-85279442836612876852016-08-06T22:45:24.183-04:002016-08-06T22:45:24.183-04:00Thanks for commenting! Yes, a general theism that ...Thanks for commenting! Yes, a general theism that I think lends itself well to Christianity. I am partial to a kind of ramified natural theology, and also Resurrection arguments, but I really only allude to them. I just wanted to discuss these arguments for now. Building the case for Christian theism on the backs of these arguments collected together is a fun approach!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-61077651454504200962016-08-06T12:51:31.704-04:002016-08-06T12:51:31.704-04:00Great article, however, as I am sure you know, thi...Great article, however, as I am sure you know, this only demonstrates, if successful sort of general theism. Moving from general theism to Christian theism would require more work. At any rate, great intro to a strong Christian apologetic. Elias Ayalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01945359447099996840noreply@blogger.com