tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Possible WorldsRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger1831125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-31863486074385641822021-09-18T18:15:42.631-04:002021-09-18T18:15:42.631-04:00Not sure if i can respond here, but i figured i wo...Not sure if i can respond here, but i figured i would try after reading everything above!<br /><br />Just in response to Bill, i think the point that the anonymous person was making(that i too believe) is that just like the computer is following instructions, we are too.<br /><br />We are both results and causes of this giant rube goldberg machine, we were merely the chain before them.<br /><br />Our mind has a certain way it processes data, much the same as a computer. If we assume for a moment God does not exist and we exist purely from evolution, then we are not designed right?<br /><br />How can we then possibly "design" a computer with set rules.<br /><br />The computer is just another extension of our evolved mind, so it is too in a way just a result of our evolution.<br /><br />Our mind may be a lot more complex than our current day computers are, but we function in the EXACT same way.<br /><br />we reason as much as a computer does, (not at all). <br />I would argue reasoning is just as much of an illusion as free will is.<br /><br />Either everything has the capability of reasoning, or nothing does. I feel both make the term rather useless.<br /><br /><br />Since everyone likes mazes so much ill use it in an example.<br /><br />Say a person is walking through a maze, and eventually finds the exit.<br />Is it not the case that the person had just as much reasoning and free will or really "input" exhibited as the finish line, or the walls surrounding them, or the floor they walked on?<br /><br />What is the line dividing us from everything else that makes up the world.<br /><br />If someone wants to respond, please be clear what exactly the difference is, i feel people always get hung up over definitions when having philosophic arguments, so i want to set the definitions immediately.<br /><br />Thanks for any response!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573242971222745770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-37301082287759477992021-09-16T13:19:03.685-04:002021-09-16T13:19:03.685-04:00I hope this means you're working on your disse...I hope this means you're working on your dissertation! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-7294147619219023602021-09-16T13:17:04.782-04:002021-09-16T13:17:04.782-04:00But I heard it makes you blind. But I heard it makes you blind. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-73843255412077524912021-08-04T10:54:44.707-04:002021-08-04T10:54:44.707-04:00Great point on the difference between having good ...Great point on the difference between having good grounds to believe both are true and having good grounds to believing two contradictory things! I think you are spot on with that.Blake Moorehttp://gnvestateplanning.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-32984349174024545692021-08-04T08:32:34.593-04:002021-08-04T08:32:34.593-04:00Good question! So here we'd want to distinguis...Good question! So here we'd want to distinguish between knowing and showing, in that both concepts differ from one another and you can know something without showing it (I could be said to know my own name, even if somehow all evidence external to me were erased, people silenced, etc.).<br /><br />That said, I will try to answer the question: first, I would appeal to people's sense that it really is possible that God exists. Many people have that intuition, after all.<br /><br />But failing that, or if they think it's just as likely as not that God's existence is even possible, then you can just run through all sorts of various evidences (e.g., the kalam, teleological, other arguments). While none of these establish a full-blown picture of God on their own, collectively they give us something that seems both to pick out God and to be at least possible!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-22192668741729283642021-08-03T15:47:56.462-04:002021-08-03T15:47:56.462-04:00Just to address the last point: you wouldn't h...Just to address the last point: you wouldn't have good grounds for believing that you both can and cannot exist disembodied, but good grounds for believing you can be disembodied, and good grounds for believing you cannot. There is a relevant difference! No one can have good grounds for believing a contradiction, but people may have good grounds for believing two things that end up being mutually exclusive or contradictory.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-41346642083805379762021-08-03T15:46:28.104-04:002021-08-03T15:46:28.104-04:00Thanks for the comment! :)
That is definitely int...Thanks for the comment! :)<br /><br />That is definitely interesting! I have to say that I cannot strongly conceive of myself as existing in a state that is incapable of being disembodied. I can conceive of it, for sure, but I have no clear positive conception of what it is like to exist in a state where I *could not* be disembodied. Any time I try, I find myself thinking that, in fact, it is at least possible for me to be disembodied.<br /><br />But that's just me. Suppose you really do strongly conceive of it. Then you just ask yourself if you have the strong conception in the OP. If you do not, that is OK. If you do, this suggests that one of the strong conceptions is incorrect (since they can't both be true). So you just ask yourself which one is more plausible: that you could be or could not be disembodied.<br /><br />So while this modal argument won't work for someone who truly *strongly* conceives that they cannot be disembodied (for those, I suspect, rare people), it can point to other reasons for them. As for the rest of us, it would work quite well. :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-84484691024306712632021-07-06T07:00:07.844-04:002021-07-06T07:00:07.844-04:00I can strongly conceive of myself as existing dise...I can strongly conceive of myself as existing disembodied. I can strongly conceive of myself I can strongly conceive of myself as existing in a state that is incapable of being disembodied. According to (3), I therefore have good grounds for believing that I both can and cannot exist disembodied.Blake Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03110711444967602305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-44348784639305966452021-06-02T19:04:44.867-04:002021-06-02T19:04:44.867-04:00Good points, Randy. I especially like your example...Good points, Randy. I especially like your example of a child reciting a syllogism. And contra the first Anonymous, a computer <i>does not</i> reason; it merely follows a preset program. Indeed, I can read this entire post into a recorder. The fact that the player reproduces the words flawlessly does not mean that it is reasoning.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-54584443572110497512021-04-15T00:17:02.764-04:002021-04-15T00:17:02.764-04:00Thank you for this article. It reads as thoughtful...Thank you for this article. It reads as thoughtful, honest, forthright and unbiased. I am a graduate of both accredited and unaccredited schools, and I have benefited from both. <br />Thank again!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02987467377165568372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-22916499425442319892021-03-22T02:06:30.188-04:002021-03-22T02:06:30.188-04:00Hi Randy,
I appreciate that I may be late to the ...Hi Randy,<br /><br />I appreciate that I may be late to the party, but I have a question that seems not to have been addressed. I understand the logic of the argument that you present and have no issue with that. <br /><br />My question is this - how would you show that God's existence is possible?<br /><br />rgds, Ian.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01156265303159447064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-44564190941038138332021-03-16T05:14:51.050-04:002021-03-16T05:14:51.050-04:00Just found this blog. Well done, Randy.Just found this blog. Well done, Randy.austro-libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04609290756406984889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-51152968498479618712021-01-17T15:33:13.609-05:002021-01-17T15:33:13.609-05:00>>One need not be able to explain everything...>>One need not be able to explain everything about a concept or term in order to know something about (and hence, mean something by) that concept or term.<<<br />What do you claim to know about the row of letters "God" or "Yahweh", other that that they are rows of letters. Do they mean anything? If so what? I can think of nothing they could mean.51265126https://www.blogger.com/profile/14342345477401377932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-15530132479790512202020-08-30T14:13:08.521-04:002020-08-30T14:13:08.521-04:00Here is a better paper on the topic than Barbara F...Here is a better paper on the topic than Barbara Forrest, https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/methodological-naturalism, and here is why I believe both are inadequate:<br /><br />http://mikemanea.com/unapologetics/a-response-to-m-boudry-on-methodological-naturalism/Mike Maneahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09555690283789717605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-82869375156618115182020-07-22T11:55:53.828-04:002020-07-22T11:55:53.828-04:00Randy Everist>>>I can make "God exis...Randy Everist>>>I can make "God exists" a proposition quite easily: It is true that God exists."<<<<br /><br />Why assert that uttering or typing "It is true that God exists" causes "God exists" to be labeled "a proposition"?51265126https://www.blogger.com/profile/14342345477401377932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-9062597750684263972020-04-01T08:47:32.599-04:002020-04-01T08:47:32.599-04:00A good way to understand the universe and the idea...A good way to understand the universe and the idea of determinism is to think of the universe as a giant rhubegoldberg project. The first ball hits a domino that hits two dominos and exponentially expands to trillions and trillions of dominos that continue to hit each other to the point of expansion that is the entirity of the current universe. And you can consider the first ball and each of the dominos as indipendant objects that are seperate from each other and yet interconnected, affecting each other and a part of the whole that is the universe. Human beings are simply factors "controlled" by prior factors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-52080785503574241342020-02-25T22:03:23.655-05:002020-02-25T22:03:23.655-05:00"How is one to know which statements are both..."How is one to know which statements are both true and false and which are not?"<br /><br />For dialetheists such as Graham Priest, I think the point is, if you have very good reason to say P and you have very good reason to say not-P then you have very good reason to say “P and not-P”. But if you have good reason for P but no reason for not-P, then you don’t have good reason for “P and not-P.”<br /><br />For example, If I say “There is an egg in this frying pan and there is not an egg in this frying pan” that’s a contradiction. I look at the frying pan and quite clearly there is an egg in it. There is just no reason to say that there is not an egg in it. So I have no reason to say that there is and is not an egg in the frying pan because I have no reason to say there is not an egg in this frying pan. Accepting that some contradictions are true doesn’t give me reason to accept that this contradiction is true.<br /><br /><br /><br />So what do you think about paraconsistent logics such as dialetheism?<br /><br />You can read more about dialetheism (the view that some contradictions are true) if you are interested: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/Hhechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12037427272927373748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-58190530034254652282020-01-14T19:29:09.883-05:002020-01-14T19:29:09.883-05:00“When you argue against Him, you are arguing again...“When you argue against Him, you are arguing against the very Power that makes you able to argue at all.”<br /><br />C.S LewisMarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-46307195533304728422019-06-21T13:04:42.928-04:002019-06-21T13:04:42.928-04:00Thanks, Matt! I think you might be on to something...Thanks, Matt! I think you might be on to something.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-46819682835335345512019-06-16T03:04:12.119-04:002019-06-16T03:04:12.119-04:00Some of this is a question of mood. If we were hon...Some of this is a question of mood. If we were honest there are plenty of times we desire the damnation of evil people or just people we do not like.<br />At our most spiritual state we desire universal redemption.<br />Does God will universalism and fail?<br />Well, if God desires to give an offer then he can offered the world salvation without failing in giving the offer. even if he does not force it to happen. Pastor Matt Singletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10479117288984518376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-10780222448904952742019-06-15T21:18:49.316-04:002019-06-15T21:18:49.316-04:00Thanks for the comments! "If they ought not b...Thanks for the comments! "If they ought not be there, hell is not just." This doesn't follow. For there is another reason they ought not be there: because they ought not to have rejected God. But Hell is a fitting place for those who finally reject God.<br /><br />Hell is a right result for those who finally reject God; it's the wrong result for the way things were meant to be: people were meant to enjoy fellowship with God.<br /><br />This all ties together with the final point: Hell as defeat of evil. It's unclear why Hell cannot be a defeat of evil; *given* their ultimate rejection of God, the right response is to banish evil from God and his people, which is what happens.<br /><br />This reflects the antecedent and consequent style of theologizing about the will of God, something not novel to me. Antecedent to sin, obviously all enjoy bliss; consequent to sin, we face judgment without repentance. *Given someone who won't repent,* it seems pretty straightforward separation from God is what is appropriate.<br /><br />Don't forget, there's two ways to critique this: internally (given what I say, is Hell just) and externally (as a matter of fact, is Hell just). It's always good to keep that in mind.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-17240413354006159572019-06-15T17:11:44.405-04:002019-06-15T17:11:44.405-04:00Err, Characterization *of hell*, not from God...
Err, Characterization *of hell*, not from God...<br />Derek Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-64491644612210163372019-06-15T17:09:56.543-04:002019-06-15T17:09:56.543-04:00If those in hell are in a state of objective alien...If those in hell are in a state of objective alienation, by definition they ought not be there. If they ought not be there, hell is not just. That hell is alienation from God seems obvious and a necessary characterization from God. But retributivists in particular should have problems with this, which I take to count against retributivism rather than the alienation account of hell. <br /><br />To speak on Hitler, his transformation in some ways is greater than that of a saint, considering the demand on God shows the glory of God in a way the transformation of a saint cannot. Having the bad guys turned always makes for a preferrable story if justice is your chief concern. <br /><br />" It’s not the way things were meant to be, but it’s the right result: a defeat of evil, cast away from God and his redeemed creation."<br /><br />This is pretty confusing. The wrong result always detracts from the way things are supposed to be, and since hell is either a right result only or a wrong result only, hell can only be a wrong result provided it detracts from the way things should be. Hitler going to hell is not a a defeat of evil; people of God being forever alien to God is a defeat for God. Since people of God are not essentially evil, it is God's will that all be saved. Well, God's will *fails*. God's will *failing* hardly defeats evil.Derek Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-46702757484671546592019-06-15T16:38:06.418-04:002019-06-15T16:38:06.418-04:00Yeah, I think that's right. On my group facebo...Yeah, I think that's right. On my group facebook page (or something like that, anyway) someone seemed to be thinking this meant I wanted people to go to Hell. But I don't think the entailments transfer. That is, I think two things can be true: we can want justice for the unrepentant child rapist, for example, while being grieved at his unrepentannce and ultimate fate.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-62188289384724664782019-06-15T15:42:03.978-04:002019-06-15T15:42:03.978-04:00I share your intuitions. Of course, eternal damnat...I share your intuitions. Of course, eternal damnation has a connotes images of people being dragged into Hell while digging their fingernails in to the floor. I suspect these sorts of connotations will be one of the many factors that will make these intuitions less obvious to others.Jonathan Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16269041767906276121noreply@blogger.com