Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on November 01, 2015, 03:12:51 PM
-
Any thoughts on this critique by Edward Feser?
"The New Atheist writers are supremely self-confident in their ability to dispatch opponents with a sarcastic quip or two. And they show no evidence whatsoever of knowing what they are talking about [.....] The New Atheism must of necessity be a New Philistinism, deliberately closing its mind to the wisdom of millennia—to the serious consideration, or even the reading, of the arguments of writers like Aristotle and Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Leibniz and Clarke, lest these dangerous ideas tempt one to doubt the secularist creed. Or, in the words of a better-known exercise in doublethink: “Ignorance is strength.”
RTWT here:
https://www.aei.org/publication/the-new-philistinism/
-
Any thoughts on this critique by Edward Feser?
"The New Atheist writers are supremely self-confident in their ability to dispatch opponents with a sarcastic quip or two. And they show no evidence whatsoever of knowing what they are talking about [.....] The New Atheism must of necessity be a New Philistinism, deliberately closing its mind to the wisdom of millennia—to the serious consideration, or even the reading, of the arguments of writers like Aristotle and Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Leibniz and Clarke, lest these dangerous ideas tempt one to doubt the secularist creed. Or, in the words of a better-known exercise in doublethink: “Ignorance is strength.”
RTWT here:
https://www.aei.org/publication/the-new-philistinism/
Yes, it's utter crap. Instead of addressing the arguments, he is denigrating the "New Atheists" with a stream of insults. The tone is set by the cartoon at the beginning which is a lie. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Richard Dawkins has read more of the Bible than the average Christian, certainly the average CofE Christian.
"Ignorance is strength" is the creed of the religious right, not the atheists.
-
It's not only utter crap, it's a textbook example of the Courtier's Reply:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier's_Reply
as Feser knows but can't refute, judging by his woeful effort to do so.
Given that the so-called "New Atheist" (not a term I like or use, but I'll run with it) group includes an evolutionary biologist, two philosophers, a physicist-philosopher and a neuroscientist (to name but a few) then no, I don't think their writings are frivolous. Some are better than others (the late Victor Stenger was a poor communicator, IMO), but frivolous and philistine? No.
-
It's not only utter crap, it's a textbook example of the Courtier's Reply:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier's_Reply
as Feser knows but can't refute, judging by his woeful effort to do so.
Given that the so-called "New Atheist" (not a term I like or use, but I'll run with it) group includes an evolutionary biologist, two philosophers, a physicist-philosopher and a neuroscientist (to name but a few) then no, I don't think their writings are frivolous. Some are better than others (the late Victor Stenger was a poor communicator, IMO), but frivolous and philistine? No.
Does it mention Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot, it would be so unusual if it doesn't?
(Sorry I haven't had time to read it yet).
ippy
-
Funnily enough I heard of Feser for the first time only a few days ago. On the basis of the article of his I read, he's not very bright is he?
Makes me think that some of us here should apply immediately to be professors of philosophy at American universities...
-
of the arguments of writers like Aristotle and Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Leibniz and Clarke,
"Wisdom of millennia"? Those sorts of writings are full of contradictions, fallacies and nonsense.
Education used to consist of learning to accept the impossible. The more ridiculous the stuff you could swallow, the more educated you were. Things haven't changed much in some quarters.
-
Funnily enough I heard of Feser for the first time only a few days ago. On the basis of the article of his I read, he's not very bright is he?
Makes me think that some of us here should apply immediately to be professors of philosophy at American universities...
That very much applies to psychology as well.
ippy
-
That very much applies to psychology as well.
ippy
Explain.
-
That very much applies to psychology as well.
ippy
Explain.
Yes the large volume of the work undertaken by clinical psychologists and psychologists over there in America could be administered by a five minute or less chat with a friend and more often than not would be here in the UK, so I'm assured first hand by two psychologists in my family, plus four others of my family that have professional reasons to deal with this subject.
I believe psychologists make good money over there in the US, maybe the general US public are persuaded to visit as often as poss by I guess, psychologists.
It's not my trade psychology but I get to hear a lot about the generalities of it but if you need more info about the intricacies, I'm not your man.
ippy
-
hmmm .. is that why we don't have the mental health services, facilities and resources that people are complaining about on a daily basis?
-
Funnily enough I heard of Feser for the first time only a few days ago. On the basis of the article of his I read, he's not very bright is he?
Makes me think that some of us here should apply immediately to be professors of philosophy at American universities...
That very much applies to psychology as well.
ippy
Explain.
Yes the large volume of the work undertaken by clinical psychologists and psychologists over there in America could be administered by a five minute or less chat with a friend and more often than not would be here in the UK, so I'm assured first hand by two psychologists in my family, plus four others of my family that have professional reasons to deal with this subject.
I believe psychologists make good money over there in the US, maybe the general US public are persuaded to visit as often as poss by I guess, psychologists.
It's not my trade psychology but I get to hear a lot about the generalities of it but if you need more info about the intricacies, I'm not your man.
ippy
So you are saying that the behaviour of clinicians in a specific application in a commercialised foreign medical system means that academics generally should be replaced?
-
Funnily enough I heard of Feser for the first time only a few days ago. On the basis of the article of his I read, he's not very bright is he?
Makes me think that some of us here should apply immediately to be professors of philosophy at American universities...
That very much applies to psychology as well.
ippy
Explain.
Yes the large volume of the work undertaken by clinical psychologists and psychologists over there in America could be administered by a five minute or less chat with a friend and more often than not would be here in the UK, so I'm assured first hand by two psychologists in my family, plus four others of my family that have professional reasons to deal with this subject.
I believe psychologists make good money over there in the US, maybe the general US public are persuaded to visit as often as poss by I guess, psychologists.
It's not my trade psychology but I get to hear a lot about the generalities of it but if you need more info about the intricacies, I'm not your man.
ippy
So you are saying that the behaviour of clinicians in a specific application in a commercialised foreign medical system means that academics generally should be replaced?
No, as I thought I had explained, I live with these people and often hear their comments but psychology, this isn't a specialist area of mine.
I assume when they express things like, we seem to be far less phobic here in the UK than is common place in the States, because they know so much more about this subject than I do, well, I'm inclined to think they're the experts.
I don't know the reasons why and that's exactly why I inserted a 'maybe' into the text of my post so that my comment could be taken as just a comment and no more than that.
ippy
-
Any thoughts on this critique by Edward Feser?
"The New Atheist writers are supremely self-confident in their ability to dispatch opponents with a sarcastic quip or two. And they show no evidence whatsoever of knowing what they are talking about [.....] The New Atheism must of necessity be a New Philistinism, deliberately closing its mind to the wisdom of millennia—to the serious consideration, or even the reading, of the arguments of writers like Aristotle and Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Leibniz and Clarke, lest these dangerous ideas tempt one to doubt the secularist creed. Or, in the words of a better-known exercise in doublethink: “Ignorance is strength.”
RTWT here:
https://www.aei.org/publication/the-new-philistinism/
What's a "New atheist" ?
-
An atheist with a computer and internet connection, I think.
-
An atheist with a computer and internet connection, I think.
Cool. That's me then. Was I an "Old Atheist" before I had a computer ?
-
At your age, definitely ;)
-
Any thoughts on this critique by Edward Feser?
"The New Atheist writers are supremely self-confident in their ability to dispatch opponents with a sarcastic quip or two. And they show no evidence whatsoever of knowing what they are talking about [.....] The New Atheism must of necessity be a New Philistinism, deliberately closing its mind to the wisdom of millennia—to the serious consideration, or even the reading, of the arguments of writers like Aristotle and Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Leibniz and Clarke, lest these dangerous ideas tempt one to doubt the secularist creed. Or, in the words of a better-known exercise in doublethink: “Ignorance is strength.”
RTWT here:
https://www.aei.org/publication/the-new-philistinism/
What's a "New atheist" ?
A wanker...............You did ask.
-
Any thoughts on this critique by Edward Feser?
"The New Atheist writers are supremely self-confident in their ability to dispatch opponents with a sarcastic quip or two. And they show no evidence whatsoever of knowing what they are talking about [.....] The New Atheism must of necessity be a New Philistinism, deliberately closing its mind to the wisdom of millennia—to the serious consideration, or even the reading, of the arguments of writers like Aristotle and Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Leibniz and Clarke, lest these dangerous ideas tempt one to doubt the secularist creed. Or, in the words of a better-known exercise in doublethink: “Ignorance is strength.”
RTWT here:
https://www.aei.org/publication/the-new-philistinism/
What's a "New atheist" ?
A wanker...............You did ask.
Well, I do that too. Everything in moderation though.
-
Any thoughts on this critique by Edward Feser?
"The New Atheist writers are supremely self-confident in their ability to dispatch opponents with a sarcastic quip or two. And they show no evidence whatsoever of knowing what they are talking about [.....] The New Atheism must of necessity be a New Philistinism, deliberately closing its mind to the wisdom of millennia—to the serious consideration, or even the reading, of the arguments of writers like Aristotle and Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Leibniz and Clarke, lest these dangerous ideas tempt one to doubt the secularist creed. Or, in the words of a better-known exercise in doublethink: “Ignorance is strength.”
RTWT here:
https://www.aei.org/publication/the-new-philistinism/
What's a "New atheist" ?
A wanker...............You did ask.
Well, I do that too. Everything in moderation though.
Do you? I've subcontracted that out, it's the modern anti-theist way, don't you know.
O.
-
Any thoughts on this critique by Edward Feser?
My initial thought was that he's an attention seeking idiot but having read his 'critique' or ramblings as they are I can only conclude my initial thought was correct.
Atheists (new old or middle aged) or as I like to call them people can make up their own minds on any 'evidence' past or present and draw conclusions from that.
The only different between now and the past is that people are better educated and education mean less religion since that is based on not questioning anything because if you dare to look at it too closely it falls apart and unfortunately for some that would require facing death for what it is and the fantasy that keeps them going would come crumbling down.
Oh well I suppose ignorance/delusion is comforting if nothing else. ::)
-
What's a "New atheist" ?
A wanker...............You did ask.
That explains why I keep hearing the crowd chanting "The referee's a new atheist" on MOTD.
-
What's a "New atheist" ?
A wanker...............You did ask.
That explains why I keep hearing the crowd chanting "The referee's a new atheist" on MOTD.
Also 'who's the Dawkins in the black?'
-
Any thoughts on this critique by Edward Feser?
My initial thought was that he's an attention seeking idiot but having read his 'critique' or ramblings as they are I can only conclude my initial thought was correct.
Atheists (new old or middle aged) or as I like to call them people can make up their own minds on any 'evidence' past or present and draw conclusions from that.
The only different between now and the past is that people are better educated and education mean less religion since that is based on not questioning anything because if you dare to look at it too closely it falls apart and unfortunately for some that would require facing death for what it is and the fantasy that keeps them going would come crumbling down.
Oh well I suppose ignorance/delusion is comforting if nothing else. ::)
How does anybody even come close to Richard Dawkins for attention seeking?
New Atheists are a bunch of rocket polishers par excellence.
-
Vlunderer,
New Atheists are a bunch of rocket polishers par excellence.
Apart from your repeated argumenta ad hominem, do you actually have anything to say about the content of the writings you're attempting to critique?
-
Vlunderer,
New Atheists are a bunch of rocket polishers par excellence.
Apart from your repeated argumenta ad hominem, do you actually have anything to say about the content of the writings you're attempting to critique?
Wot Edward Feser said..............
-
Wot Edward Feser said..............
I think it's pretty much been decided that what he said was a pile of dingoes' kidneys.
-
Vlunderer,
Wot Edward Feser said..............
Seriously? You are of course free to stand behind it if you wish, but it's pretty low grade thinking. Your call though.
-
Wot Edward Feser said..............
I think it's pretty much been decided that what he said was a pile of dingoes' kidneys.
Nope....You new atheists just don't like it up you. I think you are beginning to believe your own crap.
-
Vlunderer,
Nope....You new atheists just don't like it up you. I think you are beginning to believe your own crap.
Calling the authors "wankers" isn't putting anything "up" anyone - it's just an ad hominem, and not even a witty one.
-
Wot Edward Feser said..............
I think it's pretty much been decided that what he said was a pile of dingoes' kidneys.
Nope....You new atheists just don't like it up you. I think you are beginning to believe your own crap.
What he said was first order bollocks. Still, if that's your intellectual level, I'm happy for you to go with it.
-
Wot Edward Feser said..............
I think it's pretty much been decided that what he said was a pile of dingoes' kidneys.
Nope....You new atheists just don't like it up you. I think you are beginning to believe your own crap.
What he said was first order bollocks. Still, if that's your intellectual level, I'm happy for you to go with it.
Jeremy you are just being religious about New Atheism and treating the Dawkins, Harris's, Dennett's etc as immaculate conceptions and saints.
A Fellow believer sticking one or two on the new atheists is enjoyable but not as good as when reasonable and less angry or attention seeking atheists pull the new atheists up. People like Michael Ruse, Theodore Dalrymple, Elsdon Baker et al. It makes me relieved that it is not just loony evangelical antitheists who make up the bulk of my fellow citizens.
Still since New Atheism is getting a bit passe I do wonder if people like Feser and myself are in danger of becoming as irrelevant as what we criticise.
-
Given you agree with the Feser, Vlad, could you enlighten me as to why 'new atheism' closes its mind (which is an atrocious meaningless piece of generalisation and witless reification) to all of Aristotle, to pick the first thinker in the list?
-
Given you agree with the Feser, Vlad, could you enlighten me as to why 'new atheism' closes its mind (which is an atrocious meaningless piece of generalisation and witless reification) to all of Aristotle, to pick the first thinker in the list?
He just says they close their minds to serious consideration of Aristotle etc.
Beyond that New Atheists as a collective are in my experience very prone to dismissing any ancient philosophical approach. The philosophers of old are often derided as being from the bronze age.
In any event I think this is best settled by revisiting New Atheist works and seeing just how much reference is made to Aristotle.
-
What is the difference between closing their mind to the entirety of the works of Aristotle and 'serious consideration'? And even if we pick 'serious consideration', can you illustrate that his contention that no 'new atheist' has ever seriously considered Aristotle's work (let's stick with Aristotle because al is an addition we don't need to get onto till we've done the first one)
And if you want to use your approach, then there is no serious consideration in Feser's article about Montaigne so I suppose I can dismiss it?
-
Perhaps a better approach would be for you to suggest a piece of Aristotle's work that you think needs serious consideration by 'new atheists' and use it as an argument in support of your position? Tbh I don't really care about Dawkins says, he's your spunkmonkey, not mine, but for this to have validity it needs the arguments that you somehow seen to agree have not been given serious consideration. So let's start with Aristotle, what do you think is being not given serious consideration by these 'new atheists'?
-
What is the difference between closing their mind to the entirety of the works of Aristotle and 'serious consideration'? And even if we pick 'serious consideration', can you illustrate that his contention that no 'new atheist' has ever seriously considered Aristotle's work (let's stick with Aristotle because al is an addition we don't need to get onto till we've done the first one)
And if you want to use your approach, then there is no serious consideration in Feser's article about Montaigne so I suppose I can dismiss it?
I think he's talking about New atheism as a collective and doesn't speak of individual New Atheists.
Given that he is not stating that no New Atheist has ever seriously considered Aristotle's work I don't have to demonstrate it.
Are you arguing that New Atheism is Aristotelian?
-
Jeremy you are just being religious about New Atheism and treating the Dawkins, Harris's, Dennett's etc as immaculate conceptions and saints.
Nope. I'm reading the article without the benefit of your confirmation bias.
A Fellow believer sticking one or two on the new atheists is enjoyable but not as good as when reasonable and less angry or attention seeking atheists pull the new atheists up.
Yes, for you, it's not about making rational argument so much as sticking one on people.
Still since New Atheism is getting a bit passe I do wonder if people like Feser and myself are in danger of becoming as irrelevant as what we criticise.
You have never been relevant.
-
Isn't he stating that? Why then use the generalisation about its mind?
As to 'new atheism' being Aristotelian, that's another lazy strawman. Can we get back onto what of Aristotle isn't given serious consideration? You agree with Feser that it is true, so tell me what arguments do you think are not being given serious consideration?
-
He just says they close their minds to serious consideration of Aristotle etc.
In what context do you think the work of Aristotle is worthy of serious consideration?
-
Isn't he stating that? Why then use the generalisation about its mind?
As to 'new atheism' being Aristotelian, that's another lazy strawman. Can we get back onto what of Aristotle isn't given serious consideration? You agree with Feser that it is true, so tell me what arguments do you think are not being given serous consideration?
Are there any ideas of Aristotle that anybody gives serious consideration to nowadays? I know for a fact that his ideas on physics and cosmology are dead wrong. I imagine philosophy has moved on a bit in the last two and a half thousand years too.
-
Isn't he stating that? Why then use the generalisation about its mind?
As to 'new atheism' being Aristotelian, that's another lazy strawman. Can we get back onto what of Aristotle isn't given serious consideration? You agree with Feser that it is true, so tell me what arguments do you think are not being given serous consideration?
Are there any ideas of Aristotle that anybody gives serious consideration to nowadays? I know for a fact that his ideas on physics and cosmology are dead wrong. I imagine philosophy has moved on a bit in the last two and a half thousand years too.
Do you use your imagination as a good guide generally?
-
Isn't he stating that? Why then use the generalisation about its mind?
As to 'new atheism' being Aristotelian, that's another lazy strawman. Can we get back onto what of Aristotle isn't given serious consideration? You agree with Feser that it is true, so tell me what arguments do you think are not being given serous consideration?
Are there any ideas of Aristotle that anybody gives serious consideration to nowadays?
Not unless they'e Catholic theologians.
I know for a fact that his ideas on physics and cosmology are dead wrong.
And so obviously wrong. My 6-year-old grandmother could out-think Aristotle.I imagine philosophy has moved on a bit in the last two and a half thousand years too.
Not too sure about that bit though.
-
I imagine philosophy has moved on a bit in the last two and a half thousand years too.
Quite honestly I don't see that there's any way of telling whether this is the case. There's no way to measure it.
-
I would quite like to read some of the thoughts of Red Giant's '6 year old grandmother' who can out think Aristotle.
-
Are there any ideas of Aristotle that anybody gives serious consideration to nowadays?
Yep - his approach to ethics.
-
Jeremy you are just being religious about New Atheism and treating the Dawkins, Harris's, Dennett's etc as immaculate conceptions and saints.
"Clean up in Post 566107 - Vlad's been dribbling again!"
A Fellow believer sticking one or two on the new atheists is enjoyable but not as good as when reasonable and less angry or attention seeking atheists pull the new atheists up. People like Michael Ruse, Theodore Dalrymple, Elsdon Baker et al. It makes me relieved that it is not just loony evangelical antitheists who make up the bulk of my fellow citizens.
Wow, who would have thought that a demographic as large as 'atheists' might have a few less-that-stellar philosphers amongst them... or 'Vlads' as we like to call them.
Still since New Atheism is getting a bit passe I do wonder if people like Feser and myself are in danger of becoming as irrelevant as what we criticise.
'New' atheism has always been a bit passe, given that it was just atheism without a sense of shame. There are no new versions of 'but WHY do you accept that nonsense?' As to your becoming irrelevant, I've got good news and bad news. The good news is that you could never BECOME irrelevant...
O.
-
I would quite like to read some of the thoughts of Red Giant's '6 year old grandmother' who can out think Aristotle.
Take Vlad's posts, read them in a squeaky voice with the aroma of home-cooked food in the background, and take out the creepily fetishistic obsession with Professor Dawkins. Oh, and occasionally make a valid point instead of Vlad's usual nonsense.
O.
-
NS,
As to 'new atheism' being Aristotelian, that's another lazy strawman. Can we get back onto what of Aristotle isn't given serious consideration? You agree with Feser that it is true, so tell me what arguments do you think are not being given serious consideration?
I'd have thought that the ground rules Aristotle set out for empiricism are still germane, albeit that others have modified and built on them since. Which is ironic given Vlad's antipathy to empiricism in favour of his "whateverpopsintomyhead-ism" but there it is.
Feser's effort is spectacularly poor, but as he doesn't tell us what specifically he thinks the "new atheists" (if I say "2+2=4" at 4.30 this afternoon, does that make me a "new mathematician"?) are missing then it'd be futile to guess. For the most part though, I'd have thought that atheism is more grounded in Aristotelian thinking than is theism.
Ah well.
-
The Vlunderer,
A Fellow believer sticking one or two on the new atheists is enjoyable but not as good as when reasonable and less angry or attention seeking atheists pull the new atheists up. People like Michael Ruse, Theodore Dalrymple, Elsdon Baker et al. It makes me relieved that it is not just loony evangelical antitheists who make up the bulk of my fellow citizens.
Baker I don't know at all but based on the little I've seen so far of Feser his thinking is hopeless. Ruse is an embarrassment - he came up here a while ago for an op-ed piece in (I think) the Grauniad that was ridiculously easy to dismantle. If I can find it I'll re-post.
Dalrymple I'm aware of - right wing ideologue type - but I don't know what he has to say about religion. What is it about his work that you find persuasive - maybe we can have a look too?
-
I always viewed the philosophical sewing on of Aristotle to Thomism as the intellectual equivalent of the Human Centipede
-
NS,
I always viewed the philosophical sewing on of Aristotle to Thomism as the intellectual equivalent of the Human Centipede
The notorious horror flick of the same name? Yuk!
-
Indeed, one could look on it as a form of turd polishing off.
Anyway I am looking forward to Vlad taking me through the arguments of Aristotle that these 'new atheist' chappies have not been giving the proper consideration.
-
NS,
Indeed, one could look on it as a form of turd polishing off.
Grimly funny - enough already!
Anyway I am looking forward to Vlad taking me through the arguments of Aristotle that these 'new atheist' chappies have not been giving the proper consideration.
I've a feeling you could be in for a long wait...
-
Isn't he stating that? Why then use the generalisation about its mind?
As to 'new atheism' being Aristotelian, that's another lazy strawman. Can we get back onto what of Aristotle isn't given serious consideration? You agree with Feser that it is true, so tell me what arguments do you think are not being given serious consideration?
Sane you are dishonestly twisting the argument to one where the whole argument is about Aristotle........It isn't. The plain fact is that the entire consideration of philosophies to do with God are ignored Aristotle, Duns Scotus, Plotinus, Plato, the lot.
You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.
New Atheism is peppered with philosophers manqué all of whom have provided easy meat for Feser.
I am working up my riposte to any reasonably honest questioning you have concerning which parts of Aristotle are being ignored by the New Atheists once I have untangled that from the mire of red herring and dodge.
You have, by counter-accusing Feser of not mentioning Montaigne, as much as admitted that the New Atheists have been neglectful in there consideration of the big cosmic philosophy of the likes of Aristotle.
-
Vlunderer,
...all of whom have provided easy meat for Feser.
Given that the only piece by him I've seen so far was hopeless, could you just tell us where he does find the "new atheists" to be "easy meat" please?
Ta.
-
Isn't he stating that? Why then use the generalisation about its mind?
As to 'new atheism' being Aristotelian, that's another lazy strawman. Can we get back onto what of Aristotle isn't given serious consideration? You agree with Feser that it is true, so tell me what arguments do you think are not being given serious consideration?
Sane you are dishonestly twisting the argument to one where the whole argument is about Aristotle........It isn't. The plain fact is that the entire consideration of philosophies to do with God are ignored Aristotle, Duns Scotus, Plotinus, Plato, the lot. And yeah verily, Fucking Montaigne as well.
You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.
New Atheism is peppered with philosophers manqué all of whom have provided easy meat for Feser.
No, i'm picking an example, the first one on the list and asking you to justify the statement that you agree with Feser.
This is in no way dishonest, since i'm not making it all about Aristotle. Just asking you why you agree with Feser here. Are you saying he was wrong to use Aristotle as an example?
-
NS,
Indeed, one could look on it as a form of turd polishing off.
Grimly funny - enough already!
Anyway I am looking forward to Vlad taking me through the arguments of Aristotle that these 'new atheist' chappies have not been giving the proper consideration.
I've a feeling you could be in for a long wait...
Bluehillside?.......Is that the same Bluehillside who has just championed the incisive Dr Dawkins in his exposure of the pseudoscience of Gaia theory........completely forgetting Dawkins involvement in that of memetics.....That famous crock theory of anything?
-
You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.
Victor Stenger was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.
-
Vlunderer,
Bluehillside?.......Is that the same Bluehillside who has just championed the incisive Dr Dawkins in his exposure of the pseudoscience of Gaia theory........completely forgetting Dawkins involvement in that of memetics.....That famous crock theory of anything?
if you want to talk about memes then start a thread on it rather than derail this one so as to avoid answering the question.
Should we take it then that Feser hasn't written anything that makes the new atheists "easy meat" after all?
Who'd have thought it eh?
-
You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.
Victor Stenger was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.
That's one and a half...........................
-
I notice you have edited your post and added a bit about Montaigne and managed to get the point I was making wrong. I merely used Montaigne as an example to point out that randomly naming a number of thinkers is useless here, which is why I was asking about the specific pieces of Aristotle that you think are not given enough consideration by this set of 'new atheists' that you and Feser seem hung up on
Why is it that despite asking for that multiple times you have made no attempt to answer? One might almost suspect, given your approach to this, that you are not really an fait enough with Aristotelian thought to be able to answer.
As I am sure that isn't true, can I suggest that you justify your agreement with Feser by indicating which pieces of Aristotle are not being given enough consideration?
-
You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.
Victor Stenger was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.
That's one and a half...........................
No, by the time you're a Professor of Philosophy that makes you a full one. So that is in fact two philosophers amongst what for some reason you call the "New Atheists."
-
I take it that since Jesus has no degree we can just dismiss him as some form of wannabe philosopher?
-
One might almost suspect, given your approach to this, that you are not really an fait enough with Aristotelian thought to be able to answer.
Oh so you just want to make this about Aristotle.
The OP is about not giving a range of philosopher's serious consideration.......and what do those philosophers have in common......that's right they are all theists and the new atheists are dogmatically clear on how theistic thought should be treated...or even cosmic thought for that vis Dawkins' russelian avoidance of matters considering the origins of the cosmos
Any way as I have said I shall consider what you are asking and get back to you....Hillsides facetious remark notwithstanding.
-
NS,
I notice you have edited your post and added a bit about Montaigne and managed to get the point I was making wrong. I merely used Montaigne as an example to point out that randomly naming a number of thinkers is useless here, which is why I was asking about the specific pieces of Aristotle that you think are not given enough consideration by this set of 'new atheists' that you and Feser seem hung up on
Why is it that despite asking for that multiple times you have made no attempt to answer? One might almost suspect, given your approach to this, that you are not really an fait enough with Aristotelian thought to be able to answer.
As I am sure that isn't true, can I suggest that you justify your agreement with Feser by indicating which pieces of Aristotle are not being given enough consideration?
Wouldn’t it be embarrassing if old Vlunderer had no idea what Aristotle said that’s supposed to be relevant, had no idea what Feser thinks Aristotle said that’s supposed to be ignored by the “new atheists”, had no idea whether or not those atheists had ignored anything of relevance form Aristotle or from anyone else, and had no idea whether Feser had in fact managed to make any argument of any kind that successfully rebutted any of the writings under discussions but instead…
…just because Feser happens to disagree with them, however incompetent his reasoning that’s good enough for Vlad to think he’s “stuck it to them”.
Of course Vlad could stop with the evasions and derails and just show all that to be wrong, but somehow I doubt he will.
Just sayin’
-
You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.
Victor Stenger was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.
That's one and a half...........................
No, by the time you're a Professor of Philosophy that makes you a full one. So that is in fact two philosophers amongst what for some reason you call the "New Atheists."
We could go on all day. I think the point Feser makes is actually made if Dennett and Stenger have not made serious consideration of the theistic cosmic philosophers or that that serious consideration was not conveyed to the numerous biologists/journalists/Laurence Krauss associated with New Atheism.
-
NS,
I notice you have edited your post and added a bit about Montaigne and managed to get the point I was making wrong. I merely used Montaigne as an example to point out that randomly naming a number of thinkers is useless here, which is why I was asking about the specific pieces of Aristotle that you think are not given enough consideration by this set of 'new atheists' that you and Feser seem hung up on
Why is it that despite asking for that multiple times you have made no attempt to answer? One might almost suspect, given your approach to this, that you are not really an fait enough with Aristotelian thought to be able to answer.
As I am sure that isn't true, can I suggest that you justify your agreement with Feser by indicating which pieces of Aristotle are not being given enough consideration?
Wouldn’t it be embarrassing if old Vlunderer had no idea what Aristotle said that’s supposed to be relevant, had no idea what Feser thinks Aristotle said that’s supposed to be ignored by the “new atheists”, had no idea whether or not those atheists had ignored anything of relevance form Aristotle or from anyone else, and had no idea whether Feser had in fact managed to make any argument of any kind that successfully rebutted any of the writings under discussions but instead…
By focussing on Aristotle you are not addressing the OP and yet you are guffing on about Aristotle.
I'm glad you have conceded the opening post though.
-
Cosmic philosophers? Are they the ones who are, like, really, like, far out, man?
-
One might almost suspect, given your approach to this, that you are not really an fait enough with Aristotelian thought to be able to answer.
Oh so you just want to make this about Aristotle.
The OP is about not giving a range of philosopher's serious consideration.......and what do those philosophers have in common......that's right they are all theists and the new atheists are dogmatically clear on how theistic thought should be treated...or even cosmic thought for that vis Dawkins' russelian avoidance of matters considering the origins of the cosmos
Any way as I have said I shall consider what you are asking and get back to you....Hillsides facetious remark notwithstanding.
And again I am merely using Aristotle, the first on Feser's list, which you stated you agree with, as an example. It isn't all about him, though it mi be becoming about your inability to engage on the simple question of what it is you agreed with on Feser on this.
Yet again I will ask you do you have a justification for your agreement with Feser on Aristotle, or do we strike him from the list and move on to someone else?
-
You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.
Victor Stenger was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.
That's one and a half...........................
No, by the time you're a Professor of Philosophy that makes you a full one. So that is in fact two philosophers amongst what for some reason you call the "New Atheists."
We could go on all day. I think the point Feser makes is actually made if Dennett and Stenger have not made serious consideration of the theistic cosmic philosophers or that that serious consideration was not conveyed to the numerous biologists/journalists/Laurence Krauss associated with New Atheism.
Now you are arguing with yourself, when I, sometime ago in your prevarications, addressed the issue with Aristotle as an entirely, you moved it to specifics but since then have been unable to furnish anything, despite being asked multiple times.
So, to move once again, to ground you didn’t want to discuss before, but now seemed to have backed onto like a confused rabbit, what are the arguments of all these cosmic thinkers that have not been sufficiently addressed?
-
Of course, part of the issue here, is that Feser goes down the rather ludicrous route of talking about 'serious consideration' as if this is some measurable amount of consideration. I could in that case argue that no 'cosmic theistic philosopher' (wherever that degree is handed out), has ever seriously considered Hume. It's as valid a statement as Feser's and one that I could sit and argue for here but it would need a bit more than Vlad's wand wafting creation of the category of cosmic theistic philosophers, one that is a bit bizarre given the first name on the list, and the difference in what theistic might mean there.
BTW are we any closer to what a new atheist is? As one of thirty eight years standing, has Feser merely created a nonsense category and then dressed his argument with the garlands of meaningless assertion?
-
I would happily make the same offer to Feser as to William Lane (genocide is aok if my thug god says so) Craig. Debate anywhere anytime, you choose topic and format, and my only proviso is you have to buy sufficient alcohol before hand for me to drink, to (a) make it anything like a fair fight, and (b) for me to put up with your gaseous maunderings.
-
Vlunderer,
By focussing on Aristotle you are not addressing the OP and yet you are guffing on about Aristotle.
I'm glad you have conceded the opening post though.
And I'm glad that you now concede that the moon is made of cream cheese.
Fun this just making up what other people supposedly concede innit?
Oh, by the way: if anything NS is doing you a favour by asking you to tell us what just one of the philosophers Feser references actually said that's apparently important and that's been ignored by the "new atheists". He could instead have asked you for the same thing for all of them.
As it's now apparent that you have no idea what this Aristotelian game-changing contribution is, no idea what Feser even thinks it is (becasue he didn't bother telling us either), no idea therefore whether the atheist writers ignored it or not, and no idea whether Feser actually does have something to say that isn't full of fallacies, longeurs and expressions of personal faith masquerading as robust argument, we'll leave you to your personal grief on this I think.
Of course, if ever you do find examples of Feser, Ruse et al actually making "easy meat" of the writers you don't like but can't rebut no doubt you'll stop with the ducking and diving and will tell us won't you.
Won't you?
-
As already noted if we can't justify Aristotle on the list, let's just admit that and drop him, no.harm no foul, and move on just accepting that Feser's list and Vlad's 'agreement' is shorn of one name.
-
NS,
As already noted if we can't justify Aristotle on the list, let's just admit that and drop him, no.harm no foul, and move on just accepting that Feser's list and Vlad's 'agreement' is shorn of one name.
And move on to the next one?
So if Aristotle was a dud, which one would you like to pick instead Vlad? After all, it was you who said "what Feser said" wasn't it? Surely you must have had some notion of what he was thinking of before you leapt in so enthusiastically mustn't you?
Mustn't you?
-
The next one, the middle one, the cranky one, doesn't really matter. Point is if you can't justify somebody in the list, drop them and then next. If you want to keep them and so far Vlad hasn't done that for Aristotle, off he goes from the list
-
NS,
The next one, the middle one, the cranky one, doesn't really matter. Point is if you can't justify somebody in the list, drop them and then next. If you want to keep them and so far Vlad hasn't done that for Aristotle, off he goes from the list
Quite, but the point rather was to ask what happens when all of them are off the list for just the same reason - as they surely will be.
Unless that is Vlad feels like picking at least one of them and sharing what this pearl of wisdom was that the atheist writers have ignored.
Vlad?
-
What a sweet little mutual wankfest you and Hillside are having it is a shame to ruin the magic.
Feser has made it clear that New atheists try to explain the whole cosmos of material using scientific ideas. He has exposed Krauss for suggesting that only physics supplies answers but states that science only answers questions of science.
The result of course is the physicists nothing from which the universe starts is really an unstable something. This is the Krauss/Stenger line so at least one of the two actual philosophers avoids Theistic philosophy.
I think Feser is palpably correct in the matter.
I think Nearly Sane you were chancing your arm a bit in suggesting that the New Atheists with their commitment to materialism ever seriously engaged with Aristotle and theistic philosophers.
-
Since I didn't say any of that, hint at it or even think it very hard, then your charge that I was chancing my arm is not even wrong. Care to try anything about the subject rather than evade? Anything about Aristotle? Or just ignoring tgat?
Completely honestly, why is it that you choose to lie about what people say? Why is it that you think lying is at useful for your position? If it was not for your shockingly execrable use of English to desperately struggle to make your/any point, I might suspect that you were an avatar of Clinton, spunking up your excitement about mentioning your own name, while giving a right royal shag to the theist position.
-
Isn't he stating that? Why then use the generalisation about its mind?
As to 'new atheism' being Aristotelian, that's another lazy strawman. Can we get back onto what of Aristotle isn't given serious consideration? You agree with Feser that it is true, so tell me what arguments do you think are not being given serous consideration?
Are there any ideas of Aristotle that anybody gives serious consideration to nowadays? I know for a fact that his ideas on physics and cosmology are dead wrong. I imagine philosophy has moved on a bit in the last two and a half thousand years too.
Do you use your imagination as a good guide generally?
Do you have an answer to the question?
-
I am pretty well with Shaker here on philosophy that, specifically, measuring philosophy as improved isn't necessarily sensible. But in terms of the specific. Syllogistic logic, one of Aristotle's, works ok.and as mentioned Virtue Ethics has had a resurgence. You seem to struggle with the real problem of methodology here. That there is an improvement that can be measured.
-
Funnily enough I heard of Feser for the first time only a few days ago. On the basis of the article of his I read, he's not very bright is he?
Makes me think that some of us here should apply immediately to be professors of philosophy at American universities...
Professors of Leprechology surely?
-
Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad. Given that you have given up either justifying the use of Aristotle, or currently anyone else in Feser's list.
Any methodology? After all this time. The hundred, if not thousands, if asks? Going to ignore the questions again? Or will it be talk about something else entirely? Or more lying?
You are Clinton Richard Dawkins, making theists look like lint with all intelligence extracted, and I claim my five pieces of silver.
-
You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.
Victor Stenger was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.
That's one and a half...........................
No, by the time you're a Professor of Philosophy that makes you a full one. So that is in fact two philosophers amongst what for some reason you call the "New Atheists."
You'll probably find that most modern philosophers are atheists.
-
Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad. Given that you have given up either justifying the use of Aristotle, or currently anyone else in Feser's list.
Any methodology? After all this time. The hundred, if not thousands, if asks? Going to ignore the questions again? Or will it be talk about something else entirely? Or more lying?
You are Clinton Richard Dawkins, making theists look like lint with all intelligence extracted, and I claim my five pieces of silver.
Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem. Krauss tries to make science into a cosmological argument but can't. But even that is slightly better than Hawking who although not strictly a new atheist, the bloke who argued the death of philosophy and it's replacement with science. I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.
-
I am pretty well with Shaker here on philosophy that, specifically, measuring philosophy as improved isn't necessarily sensible. But in terms of the specific. Syllogistic logic, one of Aristotle's, works ok.and as mentioned Virtue Ethics has had a resurgence. You seem to struggle with the real problem of methodology here. That there is an improvement that can be measured.
I tend to be quite cynical about a lot of philosophy (that's cynical in the normal sense, not the branch of philosophy sense). I chose the words "moved on" quite deliberately because, to me, it seems like philosophical ideas don't so much improve as go in and out of fashion.
-
Vlunderer,
What a sweet little mutual wankfest you and Hillside are having it is a shame to ruin the magic.
Charming. Give it your best shot though won't you...
...does that mean that you're actually going to answer a question then? How thrilling...
Feser has made it clear that New atheists try to explain the whole cosmos of material using scientific ideas. He has exposed Krauss for suggesting that only physics supplies answers but states that science only answers questions of science.
...and that'll be a "no" then.
Ah well.
Oh and if not for science how else do you propose that anyone explore the "cosmos of the material"?
The result of course is the physicists nothing from which the universe starts is really an unstable something. This is the Krauss/Stenger line so at least one of the two actual philosophers avoids Theistic philosophy.
It's actually a probability rather than a "something". but let's not let your ignorance get in the way of your prejudice.
I think Feser is palpably correct in the matter.
No doubt you do.
I think Nearly Sane you were chancing your arm a bit in suggesting that the New Atheists with their commitment to materialism ever seriously engaged with Aristotle and theistic philosophers.
Just out of interest, do you think you'll ever answer a question that's put to you without just attempting a straw man version of it?
Ever?
-
You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.
Victor Stenger was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.
That's one and a half...........................
No, by the time you're a Professor of Philosophy that makes you a full one. So that is in fact two philosophers amongst what for some reason you call the "New Atheists."
You'll probably find that most modern philosophers are atheists.
Yes but so few are New Atheists. Of course not many are working on the Big philosophical themes since the work has all been done.
That makes philosophers merely attached to other academic. domains or working on the lives of the pampered like De Botton.
When I first read your post about Modern philosophers I thought ''Modernity fallacy'' and ''so what'' almost simultaneously.
-
NS,
Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad.
OFFS! He has no methodology! No method, no process, no anything to distinguish his "whateverpopsintomyhead-ism" from just guessing about stuff. You can ask him for it all you like but he'll only ever disappear over the hill when you do, or come back with insult, irrelevance, straw men etc.
It's deeply dishonest and - to be frank - I find dealing with such a thuggishly disordered and nihilistic mind to be quite troubling, but there it is nonetheless.
-
Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem.
No that is precisely the tactic that theists use when asked to explain why there is a god.
I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic
It's an indisputable fact that science is atheistic. Look through any scientific text book and you'll notice that there is a distinct absence of God in any of the theories and laws.
and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.
You both make idiotic facile arguments, it's true.
-
Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad. Given that you have given up either justifying the use of Aristotle, or currently anyone else in Feser's list.
Any methodology? After all this time. The hundred, if not thousands, if asks? Going to ignore the questions again? Or will it be talk about something else entirely? Or more lying?
You are Clinton Richard Dawkins, making theists look like lint with all intelligence extracted, and I claim my five pieces of silver.
Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem. Krauss tries to make science into a cosmological argument but can't. But even that is slightly better than Hawking who although not strictly a new atheist, the bloke who argued the death of philosophy and it's replacement with science. I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.
Woo ,nearly an argument . When you say Aristotle had an argument, on you go son, on me head,what is it? Tell me why it wasn't take seriously enough? You know the thing you have been asked about by me, on this thread, 7 times,if not more? Go on, you have taken the tinybabysteps, keep going! Otherwise we just end in Kant 46, Hume 127.
Make your argument, don't hand wave about it, same applies to you and Feser, on you go....
itwasn
-
Yes but so few are New Atheists.
What's your definition of "New Atheist"?
Of course not many are working on the Big philosophical themes since the work has all been done.
Mostly by atheists.
-
Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem.
No that is precisely the tactic that theists use when asked to explain why there is a god.
I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic
It's an indisputable fact that science is atheistic. Look through any scientific text book and you'll notice that there is a distinct absence of God in any of the theories and laws.
and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.
You both make idiotic facile arguments, it's true.
As do you a methodology has no intentionality. Portraying science as atheistic is a category error and equivalent of not even wrong.
-
Vlunderer,
What a sweet little mutual wankfest you and Hillside are having it is a shame to ruin the magic.
Charming. Give it your best shot though won't you...
...does that mean that you're actually going to answer a question then? How thrilling...
Feser has made it clear that New atheists try to explain the whole cosmos of material using scientific ideas. He has exposed Krauss for suggesting that only physics supplies answers but states that science only answers questions of science.
...and that'll be a "no" then.
Ah well.
Oh and if not for science how else do you propose that anyone explore the "cosmos of the material"?
I've no objection to using science to explore the cosmos of the material. It's just the failure of material or nature to explain it's own providence without transgressing it's own rules. Feser i'm sure puts that more succinctly than me though.
-
Yes but so few are New Atheists.
What's your definition of "New Atheist"?
Of course not many are working on the Big philosophical themes since the work has all been done.
Mostly by atheists.
What big philosophical themes?
What atheists?
-
Vlunderer,
What a sweet little mutual wankfest you and Hillside are having it is a shame to ruin the magic.
Charming. Give it your best shot though won't you...
...does that mean that you're actually going to answer a question then? How thrilling...
Feser has made it clear that New atheists try to explain the whole cosmos of material using scientific ideas. He has exposed Krauss for suggesting that only physics supplies answers but states that science only answers questions of science.
...and that'll be a "no" then.
Ah well.
Oh and if not for science how else do you propose that anyone explore the "cosmos of the material"?
I've no objection to using science to explore the cosmos of the material. It's just the failure of material or nature to explain it's own providence without transgressing it's own rules. Feser i'm sure puts that more succinctly than me though.
So you agree with him but you don't know why - awww!
-
Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad. Given that you have given up either justifying the use of Aristotle, or currently anyone else in Feser's list.
Any methodology? After all this time. The hundred, if not thousands, if asks? Going to ignore the questions again? Or will it be talk about something else entirely? Or more lying?
You are Clinton Richard Dawkins, making theists look like lint with all intelligence extracted, and I claim my five pieces of silver.
Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem. Krauss tries to make science into a cosmological argument but can't. But even that is slightly better than Hawking who although not strictly a new atheist, the bloke who argued the death of philosophy and it's replacement with science. I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.
Woo ,nearly an argument . When you say Aristotle had an argument, on you go son, on me head,what is it? Tell me why it wasn't take seriously enough? You know the thing you have been asked about by me, on this thread, 7 times,if not more? Go on, you have taken the tinybabysteps, keep going! Otherwise we just end in Kant 46, Hume 127.
Make your argument, don't hand wave about it, same applies to you and Feser, on you go....
itwasn
Unmoved mover and uncaused cause of course.
-
Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad. Given that you have given up either justifying the use of Aristotle, or currently anyone else in Feser's list.
Any methodology? After all this time. The hundred, if not thousands, if asks? Going to ignore the questions again? Or will it be talk about something else entirely? Or more lying?
You are Clinton Richard Dawkins, making theists look like lint with all intelligence extracted, and I claim my five pieces of silver.
Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem. Krauss tries to make science into a cosmological argument but can't. But even that is slightly better than Hawking who although not strictly a new atheist, the bloke who argued the death of philosophy and it's replacement with science. I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.
Woo ,nearly an argument . When you say Aristotle had an argument, on you go son, on me head,what is it? Tell me why it wasn't take seriously enough? You know the thing you have been asked about by me, on this thread, 7 times,if not more? Go on, you have taken the tinybabysteps, keep going! Otherwise we just end in Kant 46, Hume 127.
Make your argument, don't hand wave about it, same applies to you and Feser, on you go....
itwasn
Unmoved mover and uncaused cause of course.
And they called it special pleading, even though it made no sense, Tell them all please that it isn't fair, Even though Vlad said Dawkins and came in his pants'
-
Feser has made it clear that New atheists try to explain the whole cosmos of material using scientific ideas. He has exposed Krauss for suggesting that only physics supplies answers but states that science only answers questions of science.
Unless you can adequately demonstrate that some questions are both valid and definitively beyond science, why is that a problem?
The result of course is the physicists nothing from which the universe starts is really an unstable something. This is the Krauss/Stenger line so at least one of the two actual philosophers avoids Theistic philosophy.
This is the logical deduction from the available evidence.
I think Feser is palpably correct in the matter.
That's fine. My cousin happens to think that Irn Bru is the single greatest drink every put onto the open market. Like him, unless you can support your comment, it's at best aesthetics and at worst just an assertion.
I think Nearly Sane you were chancing your arm a bit in suggesting that the New Atheists with their commitment to materialism ever seriously engaged with Aristotle and theistic philosophers.
Aristotle's work doesn't need to be directly accounted for by the New Atheists, primarily because it's already been extensively criticised by the following two millenia of philosophers (in particular the late Byzantines) and his work in the realm of what is now the classical sciences was largely superseded in the early Enlightenment when it was pointed out that his work was primarily qualitative in a field that required quanitative analysis in order to establish anything.
Further his concept of ideal concept instantiated into a physical reality completely failed to accomodate the discoveries of various phenomena which are spectra, or where strictly defining boundaries between concepts which would be based on ideals would be impossible. This is the same issue that hits Creationists when they try to define 'kinds' to avoid the realities of evolution.
This is all the basis of the development of the scientific method and modern philosophy in the 1600s. The reason the New Atheists don't spend any time on this is the same reason that the Royal Navy isn't refitting HMS Victory...
O.
-
Yes but so few are New Atheists.
What's the difference, then?
-
Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
And like every Cosmological argument, it's special pleading - the universe had to come from something, therefore I will posit something that didn't have to come from nothing, but that's not allowed to be the universe because reasons.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem.
The New Atheists say 'we don't know', in the main. Some of them are a little more hopeful and say 'we don't know yet'. 'Science' currently has one or two promising hypotheses that work mathematically, but more evidence is needed.
Krauss tries to make science into a cosmological argument but can't. But even that is slightly better than Hawking who although not strictly a new atheist, the bloke who argued the death of philosophy and it's replacement with science. I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth.
That argument sort of falls down given that it's not what Krauss says, it's just a pompous straw man.
Krauss says he thinks it's easier to be an atheist as a scientist, and a scientist as an atheist, but the doesn't say either is necessary.
That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.
And, like you, his best arguments are against the things that no-one has said.
O.
-
When I first read your post about Modern philosophers I thought ''Modernity fallacy'' and ''so what'' almost simultaneously.
And the, because you were so disinterested, you stayed way after curfew to continue to not care at great length about it all...
O.
-
I've no objection to using science to explore the cosmos of the material. It's just the failure of material or nature to explain it's own providence without transgressing it's own rules. Feser i'm sure puts that more succinctly than me though.
Which is one of the reasons that scientific findings are only ever, and for the foreseeable future will only ever, be provisional.
All you need to do to justify anything else is put forward an alternative method for reliably deducing anything about reality. Absolute logic worked for Descartes, but he ran out at 'Cogito Ergo Sum'.
I know you're allergic to the word 'methodology', but it's your only way forward. Give us a viable alternative, or continue to have the unsubstantiable claims dismissed as assertions.
O.
-
Unmoved mover and uncaused cause of course.
Why? Why can't reality be infinite?
O.
-
Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad. Given that you have given up either justifying the use of Aristotle, or currently anyone else in Feser's list.
Any methodology? After all this time. The hundred, if not thousands, if asks? Going to ignore the questions again? Or will it be talk about something else entirely? Or more lying?
You are Clinton Richard Dawkins, making theists look like lint with all intelligence extracted, and I claim my five pieces of silver.
Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem. Krauss tries to make science into a cosmological argument but can't. But even that is slightly better than Hawking who although not strictly a new atheist, the bloke who argued the death of philosophy and it's replacement with science. I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.
Woo ,nearly an argument . When you say Aristotle had an argument, on you go son, on me head,what is it? Tell me why it wasn't take seriously enough? You know the thing you have been asked about by me, on this thread, 7 times,if not more? Go on, you have taken the tinybabysteps, keep going! Otherwise we just end in Kant 46, Hume 127.
Make your argument, don't hand wave about it, same applies to you and Feser, on you go....
itwasn
Unmoved mover and uncaused cause of course.
And they called it special pleading, even though it made no sense, Tell them all please that it isn't fair, Even though Vlad said Dawkins and came in his pants'
But here is the point Sane.
If we dismiss the cosmological argument we are left with material being it's own uncaused cause.
-
Or dunno, as opposed special pleading, special pleading , special pleading.
-
But here is the point Sane. If we dismiss the cosmological argument we are left with material being it's own uncaused cause.
No, we're left with material outside of time where the concept of 'cause' is meaningless. You, like Aristotle, are stuck inside a paradigm where your entire vocabulary is predicated on the constant movement through time, but the evidence suggests time is a function of the universe, not the broader reality outside it.
O.
-
You make the claim, still not even a concept of what evidence would be! How terribly sad!
-
Or dunno, as opposed special pleading, special pleading , special pleading.
I don't know if ''dunno'' is an argument so you may not actually be mounting any challenge of any sort.
-
Or dunno, as opposed special pleading, special pleading , special pleading.
I don't know if ''dunno'' is an argument so you may not actually be mounting any challenge of any sort.
Did I say it was an argument? Ohdear,no, Vlad, off lying again. Why do you like so much?
-
But here is the point Sane. If we dismiss the cosmological argument we are left with material being it's own uncaused cause.
No, we're left with material outside of time where the concept of 'cause' is meaningless.
I think God is often described thus.
However the problem of why something rather than nothing still haunts the existence of your material.
The Scientific/Stenger answer of course is that nothing is unstable(sic) but something is. How does a change from instability to stability happen without time.......and for that matter how is it NOT an unmoved mover or Not an Uncaused cause?
-
I think God is often described thus.
No, God is described as non-material, and is ascribed a conscious will which this isn't, because consciousness as we understand it requires time in order for the stream of awareness to move and pass.
However the problem of why something rather than nothing still haunts the existence of your material.
No, you have to explain what reason you have to think there's a 'why' in the first place.
The Scientific/Stenger answer of course is that nothing is unstable(sic) but something is. How does a change from instability to stability happen without time.......
That's a really interesting question that scientists are working on even as we speak.
...and for that matter how is it NOT an unmoved mover or Not an Uncaused cause?
It may turn out to be, but it's not definitionally so - there is no reason at the moment to presume there's an 'unmoved mover', there's no reason to presume reality is not infinite in scope.
O.
-
But here is the point Sane. If we dismiss the cosmological argument we are left with material being it's own uncaused cause.
No, we're left with material outside of time where the concept of 'cause' is meaningless.
I think God is often described thus.
However the problem of why something rather than nothing still haunts the existence of your material.
The Scientific/Stenger answer of course is that nothing is unstable(sic) but something is. How does a change from instability to stability happen without time.......and for that matter how is it NOT an unmoved mover or Not an Uncaused cause?
Except all of that would apply to all of your position without the cover of special pleading, again, in which case your position is based on saying this applies except when it doesn't. Given that is logically unsound, your position isn't even a mince keech.
-
Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem.
No that is precisely the tactic that theists use when asked to explain why there is a god.
I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic
It's an indisputable fact that science is atheistic. Look through any scientific text book and you'll notice that there is a distinct absence of God in any of the theories and laws.
and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.
You both make idiotic facile arguments, it's true.
As do you a methodology has no intentionality.
What are you talking about? Nobody said methodology has intentionality. Science is atheistic in that, to do it successfully, you have to assume there are no gods behind the scenes turning the wheels. Hence it is "without God" ... atheistic.
Portraying science as atheistic is a category error and equivalent of not even wrong.
Ah the fallacy of the category error. Shut up with your stupid categories.
-
Feser has made it clear that New atheists try to explain the whole cosmos of material using scientific ideas.
Can't say I've come across any New Atheists trying to explain the universe. Only theologians think they can do that.He has exposed Krauss for suggesting that only physics supplies answers but states that science only answers questions of science.
Indeed. Those are the only questions that have answers. The other questions can't be answered because there's no way of knowing if you're right or not. 56 philosophers will give you 56 different gaseous effusions and you can given them all the "serious" consideration you like, and it will all be a total waste of time because you won't be any the wiser. Though I suppose you can give yourself a pat on the back for your intellectualism.
Shaker's sig is exactly right. If a philosopher can't answer that question, what sort of consideration can you give him that can be called "serious"? How will you evaluate him?
-
JeremyP said (correctly): "You'll probably find that most modern philosophers are atheists."
Vlad replied: "Yes but so few are New Atheists [sic]."
I'm still waiting for Vlad to explain the difference.
-
Dear Shaker,
I'm still waiting for Vlad to explain the difference.
Google new atheist, you will receive thousands of hits, your hero amongst them.
By comparison, read any post by Nearlysane.
Mostly your new atheist wallows in the shallow end, he does not want to engage, rather like Floo's "the Biblical deity is evil".
Gonnagle.
-
Still not seeing anything different with regard to what atheists are saying now compared to what some of them were saying hundreds, in fact thousands of years ago. "New Atheism" strikes me as no more than a lazy, thoughtless journalistic stereotype to refer collectively to a small group of individuals who happened to publish books at around the same time.
-
Dear Shaker,
Fair enough, I see a difference you don't, to add, I like the new atheist, they have put a torch under the arse of organised religion.
Gonnagle.
-
Thinking about it much of the 'new atheism' is seen as effected because of 9/11. Was that an example of new or old theism?
-
Dear Sane,
Thinking about it much of the 'new atheism' is seen as effected because of 9/11.
What do you mean by effected?
I first started seeing this new atheism way back in 2006, Dawkins Root of all Evil programme, which if I remember correctly his fellow Oxford atheists ( just atheists ) distanced themselves from the programme.
Was that an example of new or old theism?
New, well if you want to point a finger.
Gonnagle.
-
If we take at least 3 of the 4 fabled horsemen o the athiocalypse, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins, Al explicitly refer to 9/11 as a trigger event. And one that saw them despite the caricature sometimes presented, concentrate a lot more on Islam, particularly in the case of Harris and Hitchens than Christianity.
Perhaps it is this idea of the facilitation of mad beliefs by semi-sensible, in comparison, views, that marks out 'new atheism' but it is Haunted by the idea that religion flies people into buildings. The show of the Twin Towers made many worry about the geopolitics of religion (to connect the postings elsewhere of Prof D and Outrider). The undertone of actual apocalyptic ranting by the Christian right in the U.S. adds to the infernal cocktail of lunatic hatred. In some aspects I think that pulled both Hitchens and Harris into into a love of the nut job right wing and their neo liberalism and its hatreds.
Need to cut this short just now will pick up later.
-
I think that one of the most well-known philosophers who defended atheism in recent times, has been J. L. Mackie, especially his book, 'The Miracle of Theism', which is quite a witty title. But he is not (presumably) a New Atheist, since he died in the 80s, and he was not the flamboyant type.
I noticed that the first sentence in his book, 'Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong', is 'There are no objective values', which made me laugh.
Also, he wrote a famous article, 'Evil and Omnipotence', which is online, and he wrote this 60 years ago! This is Old Atheism.
http://www.ditext.com/mackie/evil.html
-
I think that one of the most well-known philosophers who defended atheism in recent times, has been J. L. Mackie, especially his book, 'The Miracle of Theism', which is quite a witty title.
A nod to Hume there - excellent book.
-
I think God is often described thus.
No, God is described as non-material, and is ascribed a conscious will which this isn't, because consciousness as we understand it requires time in order for the stream of awareness to move and pass.
However the problem of why something rather than nothing still haunts the existence of your material.
No, you have to explain what reason you have to think there's a 'why' in the first place.
The Scientific/Stenger answer of course is that nothing is unstable(sic) but something is. How does a change from instability to stability happen without time.......
That's a really interesting question that scientists are working on even as we speak.
...and for that matter how is it NOT an unmoved mover or Not an Uncaused cause?
It may turn out to be, but it's not definitionally so - there is no reason at the moment to presume there's an 'unmoved mover', there's no reason to presume reality is not infinite in scope.
O.
God is described as being out of time.
Material which is out of time? How is that therefore related to Material which is in time where causation is all?
In terms of consciousness all is required is awareness of oneself surely. I notice you have had to coin the phrase 'a stream of awareness' for your argument to work. I think you are touting a theory of consciousness.
I'm glad in your closing statements you concede the possibility of an ''uncreated'' ......that is aristotelean.
You are however left with this mysterious material which is outside of time. It is i'm afraid definitionally uncreated but you are so reluctant to face up to this. If it remains the uncreated out of time it has no obvious relationship to time and is a red Herring.
That effectively leaves us with material in time and if that was not created then it must be uncreated and that too is Aristotelian.
Any other argument is avoidance of that.
-
I think that one of the most well-known philosophers who defended atheism in recent times, has been J. L. Mackie, especially his book, 'The Miracle of Theism', which is quite a witty title.
A nod to Hume there - excellent book.
If it was written before the New Atheists it is probably a good book.
You rather gave the game away by referring to it as a defence of atheism.
New Atheists tend to be convinced automatically of the rightness of their position and attack religion and of course people who are ''nice'' to religion rather than conceding that all ideas need justification.
-
If it was written before the New Atheists it is probably a good book.
So there's a time limit on when books about atheism can be good now, is there?
I note that true to form you're evading giving a definition of this "New Atheism" thing you bang on about.
You rather gave the game away by referring to it as a defence of atheism.
No I didn't. That was wigginhall in #122 - do keep up.
New Atheists tend to be convinced automatically of the rightness of their position
All people do that with all the positions they hold, or they wouldn't hold them.
-
If it was written before the New Atheists it is probably a good book.
So there's a time limit on when books about atheism can be good now, is there?
I note that true to form you're evading giving a definition of this "New Atheism" thing you bang on about.
You rather gave the game away by referring to it as a defence of atheism.
No I didn't. That was wigginhall in #122 - do keep up.
New Atheists tend to be convinced automatically of the rightness of their position
All people do that with all the positions they hold, or they wouldn't hold them.
Time limit on good atheist books? Coming over as righteous, preaching to the converted, playing to the Gallery and treating, with no evidence, moderate atheists as wankers is not a good or successful look for a fundementalist, proselytising antitheism.
The ''fuck you'' attitude of the young is what these old dudes have unsubtely tapped into.(Dawkins on Twitter) and if one supports it one is either a) trying to recapture one's youth or b)one needs one's prostate checked out.
-
Time limit on good atheist books? Coming over as righteous
No idea what this refers to.
preaching to the converted
Convert's Corner on the Dawkins website says otherwise.
playing to the Gallery
Again, no idea what this is supposed to be about.
and treating, with no evidence, moderate atheists as wankers is not a good or successful look for a fundementalist, proselytising antitheism.
"Fundamentalist"? How pathetic.
Fundamentalist Muslims have to work at their fundamentalism to earn the title - they have to plant bombs and decapitate people and shit. If you're an atheist all you have to do is sit in your study in north Oxford and write a book.
-
"Fundamentalist"? How pathetic.
Fundamentalist Muslims have to work at their fundamentalism to earn the title - they have to plant bombs and decapitate people and shit. If you're an atheist all you gave to do is sit in your study in north Oxford and write a book.
Yes but fundamentalist Christians do not as a rule nor en masse plant bombs or decapitate so you are heavy duty category fucking and redefining to suit your argument.
-
"Fundamentalist"? How pathetic.
Fundamentalist Muslims have to work at their fundamentalism to earn the title - they have to plant bombs and decapitate people and shit. If you're an atheist all you gave to do is sit in your study in north Oxford and write a book.
Yes but fundamentalist Christians do not as a rule nor en masse plant bombs or decapitate so you are heavy duty category fucking and redefining to suit your argument.
No I'm not - I didn't bring fundamentalist Christians into the discussion or indeed fundamentalist anything; you did that with your absurd fundamentalist antitheist twaddle.
-
New Atheists tend to be convinced automatically of the rightness of their position
Can you name me some new atheists that are convinced automatically of their position.
Aso, you seem to be couching being "convinced automatically" as a pejorative. How do you square that with the fact that you, Hope, Spud, 2 Corrie, Bashful Anthony, TW and both Alans are convinced automatically of the rightness of Christianity.
-
Time limit on good atheist books? Coming over as righteous, preaching to the converted, playing to the Gallery and treating, with no evidence, moderate atheists as wankers is not a good or successful look for a fundementalist, proselytising antithesis.
So there's never been a good Christian book.
The ''fuck you'' attitude of the young is what these old dudes have unsubtely tapped into.(Dawkins on Twitter) and if one supports it one is either a) trying to recapture one's youth or b)one needs one's prostate checked out.
I find this quite risible. All the things you ascribe to "New Atheists" are attributes of Christians throughout the ages.
-
New Atheists tend to be convinced automatically of the rightness of their position
Can you name me some new atheists that are convinced automatically of their position.
Aso, you seem to be couching being "convinced automatically" as a pejorative. How do you square that with the fact that you, Hope, Spud, 2 Corrie, Bashful Anthony, TW and both Alans are convinced automatically of the rightness of Christianity.
Yeah, alright, it was a bit of a shit argument.
-
Yeah, alright, it was a bit of a shit argument.
A very gracious concession, thank you.
Now we just need to wade our way through all the other 24,637,336 shit arguments you've advanced and we'll be getting somewhere ;)
-
Oh and by the way, what's a new atheist again ? Last time I asked you just insulted me.
-
God is described as being out of time.
I think you're liberally interpreting the idea of gods being described as an anachronism :P
Material which is out of time? How is that therefore related to Material which is in time where causation is all?
Good question... no idea yet. The hypotheses that have been put forward are purely mathematical, we possibly don't have the cognitive framework to develop language that would accurately convey the ideas.
In terms of consciousness all is required is awareness of oneself surely. I notice you have had to coin the phrase 'a stream of awareness' for your argument to work. I think you are touting a theory of consciousness.
No, you're the one that pitched in with 'in terms of consciousnes all is required is an awareness of oneself'... It may be that a stream of general awareness is sufficient, it might be self-awareness is required, I'd not really gone into it here as it seems extraneous to the discussion.
I'm glad in your closing statements you concede the possibility of an ''uncreated'' ......that is aristotelean.
I never denied it was a possiblity, I just didn't limit my considerations to just that possibility because it fit a preconception I had.
You are however left with this mysterious material which is outside of time. It is i'm afraid definitionally uncreated but you are so reluctant to face up to this.
If we know nothing about it, how can we definitively state anything about it? Us not knowing how it came about - if it came about at all - is not the same as it being uncreated.
If it remains the uncreated out of time it has no obvious relationship to time and is a red Herring.
No - if time came from it, and time exists purely within the universe which the maths and evidence seem to suggest is the case, then why does the extra-universal material have to be unrelated? Nature is an ongoing sequence of one form of things coming from another.
That effectively leaves us with material in time and if that was not created then it must be uncreated and that too is Aristotelian.
Any other argument is avoidance of that.
No-one's avoiding that, but Aristotle and you both seem averse to just accepting an infinite, unconscious reality, without any explanation of why.
O.
-
Yeah, alright, it was a bit of a shit argument.
A very gracious concession, thank you.
Now we just need to wade our way through all the other 24,637,336 shit arguments you've advanced and we'll be getting somewhere ;)
Don't exaggerate! It was never more than 15,500,815. :)
-
God is described as being out of time.
I think you're liberally interpreting the idea of gods being described as an anachronism :P
Material which is out of time? How is that therefore related to Material which is in time where causation is all?
Good question... no idea yet. The hypotheses that have been put forward are purely mathematical, we possibly don't have the cognitive framework to develop language that would accurately convey the ideas.
In terms of consciousness all is required is awareness of oneself surely. I notice you have had to coin the phrase 'a stream of awareness' for your argument to work. I think you are touting a theory of consciousness.
No, you're the one that pitched in with 'in terms of consciousnes all is required is an awareness of oneself'... It may be that a stream of general awareness is sufficient, it might be self-awareness is required, I'd not really gone into it here as it seems extraneous to the discussion.
I'm glad in your closing statements you concede the possibility of an ''uncreated'' ......that is aristotelean.
I never denied it was a possiblity, I just didn't limit my considerations to just that possibility because it fit a preconception I had.
You are however left with this mysterious material which is outside of time. It is i'm afraid definitionally uncreated but you are so reluctant to face up to this.
If we know nothing about it, how can we definitively state anything about it? Us not knowing how it came about - if it came about at all - is not the same as it being uncreated.
If it remains the uncreated out of time it has no obvious relationship to time and is a red Herring.
No - if time came from it, and time exists purely within the universe which the maths and evidence seem to suggest is the case, then why does the extra-universal material have to be unrelated? Nature is an ongoing sequence of one form of things coming from another.
That effectively leaves us with material in time and if that was not created then it must be uncreated and that too is Aristotelian.
Any other argument is avoidance of that.
No-one's avoiding that, but Aristotle and you both seem averse to just accepting an infinite, unconscious reality, without any explanation of why.
O.
Well Outrider you have already conceded at least one....''Don't know''.
If there is an infinite unconscious reality, you still haven't explained what it has got to do with finite conscious reality.
If it is infinite it has to be uncaused (No precedent in this universe or in science).............and that is an Aristotelean idea........which is what this thread has been been all about.
I do not avoid the possibility. The argument has merit......but it is miles away from the New Atheist avoidance and Nearly Sane's refuge in ''Dunno''.
....And all that is before we look at your definition of being out of time.
-
Yeah, alright, it was a bit of a shit argument.
A very gracious concession, thank you.
And certainly one the gargantuan collective Ego of the antitheist fraternity will never make.... Because they are always right about everything........(keep up with this perfection on Richard Dawkin's Twitter account)
-
Yeah, alright, it was a bit of a shit argument.
A very gracious concession, thank you.
Now we just need to wade our way through all the other 24,637,336 shit arguments you've advanced and we'll be getting somewhere ;)
Don't exaggerate! It was never more than 15,500,815. :)
Bashful your post reminds me of Anchorman when Brick is standing with the opposition laughing at the News team........
With friends like these who needs enemies.
-
Vlunderer,
The argument has merit......but it is miles away from the New Atheist avoidance...
An "avoidance" you've yet to demontsrate.
...and Nearly Sane's refuge in ''Dunno''.
Why is "dunno" a "refuge" when it's the honest answer?
-
Vlunderer,
The argument has merit......but it is miles away from the New Atheist avoidance...
An "avoidance" you've yet to demontsrate.
...and Nearly Sane's refuge in ''Dunno''.
Why is "dunno" a "refuge" when it's the honest answer?
No, philosophically the end game is either matter which creates itself or uncreated matter or matter created by an uncreated creator or an infinite number of creators. To say I don't know in a philosophical argument in the face of all those possibilities is a refuge and an alternative to admitting an Aristotelean possibility.
And that of course is what Feser accuses the New Atheist's of doing.
-
Vlunderer,
No, philosophically the end game is either matter which creates itself or uncreated matter or matter created by an uncreated creator or an infinite number of creators. To say I don't know in a philosophical argument in the face of all those possibilities is a refuge and an alternative to admitting an Aristotelean possibility.
It's no such thing - even if they are the only possibilities, there are no tools available to decide which one - if any - is the correct one. That's why "don't know" is the honest response - just guessing at an "uncreated creator", calling it "God" and worshipping it is epistemically hopeless.
And that of course is what Feser accuses the New Atheist's of doing.
And if he is then he's wrong to do so - at least unless he's managed to do the thing you always run away from and provided a robust method to explain how he gets from his personal faith conviction verifiably to one of the possible answers.
Has he?
-
Well Outrider you have already conceded at least one....''Don't know''.
I've conceded many don't knows, that's the nature of human understanding at this point.
If there is an infinite unconscious reality, you still haven't explained what it has got to do with finite conscious reality.
Who said anything about a 'conscious reality'? Or do you mean us, as conscoius organisms within that reality?
If it is infinite it has to be uncaused (No precedent in this universe or in science).............and that is an Aristotelean idea........which is what this thread has been been all about.
No, Aristotle was explicitly against the possibility of an infinite regression, and regurgitates Plato's special pleading to do so.
I do not avoid the possibility. The argument has merit......but it is miles away from the New Atheist avoidance and Nearly Sane's refuge in ''Dunno''.
I don't know is perfectly honest - none of us know. We can suggest possibilities, but in the absence of a reliable means of getting sufficient data at this time, we're left with either absolute logic - which to date has proven to be insufficient - or we have to wait.
....And all that is before we look at your definition of being out of time.
Feel free to try, as I've said before I'm not sure we have the capacity to really conceive of a timeless physics in anything other than mathematical abstractions.
O.
-
No, philosophically the end game is either matter which creates itself or uncreated matter or matter created by an uncreated creator or an infinite number of creators. To say I don't know in a philosophical argument in the face of all those possibilities is a refuge and an alternative to admitting an Aristotelean possibility.
Some of them are logically untenable (self-creating matter) or are special pleading (uncreated creator). Whether we have inifinite matter or inifinite chain with 'creators' in there is something that requires more data than we have.
And that of course is what Feser accuses the New Atheist's of doing.
And, like you, that's because the honesty of saying 'we don't know' is somehow pathologically avoided. What's the problem with saying that we don't have enough information to differentiate between possibilities?
O.
-
No, philosophically the end game is either matter which creates itself or uncreated matter or matter created by an uncreated creator or an infinite number of creators.
At least two more possibilities - matter that spontaneously came into existence, and matter that has always existed.
All the options are weird, but which one you think is less weird than the rest is entirely subjective.
-
No, philosophically the end game is either matter which creates itself or uncreated matter or matter created by an uncreated creator or an infinite number of creators. To say I don't know in a philosophical argument in the face of all those possibilities is a refuge and an alternative to admitting an Aristotelean possibility.
Some of them are logically untenable (self-creating matter) or are special pleading (uncreated creator). Whether we have inifinite matter or inifinite chain with 'creators' in there is something that requires more data than we have.
And that of course is what Feser accuses the New Atheist's of doing.
And, like you, that's because the honesty of saying 'we don't know' is somehow pathologically avoided. What's the problem with saying that we don't have enough information to differentiate between possibilities?
O.
The accusation of special pleading is straight out of the antitheists bumper book ......and wrong!
An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator. Neither need be ''specially pled'' as long as the other remains an argument.
Is self creating matter untenable logically? Stenger and Krauss don't seem to think so. Their problem is that they try to explain it within the laws of physics......which leaves them actually with Nothing really being an unstable something.
It is all up in the air of course but I move that the antitheist position at present is to duck the issue or to come up with a fix in which two conflicting ideas are held simultaneously. uncaused cause and cause and effect.
It's what the duallists call the ''give us one miracle and philosophical naturalism will explain the rest''.
-
An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated universe
True, as far as it goes, although I suspect this is because the invisible (and allegedly pink) typo-fairy has visited you for breakfast this morning, Vlad) :)
Good morning, by the way.
-
An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated universe
True, as far as it goes, although I suspect this is because the invisible (and allegedly pink) typo-fairy has visited you for breakfast this morning, Vlad) :)
Good morning, by the way.
Many thanks to you and thanks for your vigilance. Top of the morning to you sir. Good to see your faereology is in the ....er,pink.
-
An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator.
No it isn't. The Universe has an important argument in its favour in comparison to God: we are fairly certain it exists.
-
An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator.
No it isn't. The Universe has an important argument in its favour in comparison to God: we are fairly certain it exists.
Argumentum ad populum?
Yes Jeremy.....but is it a created universe or an uncreated universe?
You are just giving a warmed over version of the Russellian and Dawkinsian ''Let's not mind about the origin of the universe, it just is''
-
An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator.
No it isn't. The Universe has an important argument in its favour in comparison to God: we are fairly certain it exists.
Argumentum ad populum?
Do you understand what that phrase means? Clearly not.
Yes Jeremy.....but is it a created universe or an uncreated universe?
I don't know, but I am sure that the Universe exists and I'm fairly sure there is no god.
You are just giving a warmed over version of the Russellian and Dawkinsian ''Let's not mind about the origin of the universe, it just is''
I don't think either of those people would take that attitude. Saying "I don't know is different from saying "I don't care".
Furthermore the attitude is actually a Christian thing: "let's not mind about the origin of God, he just is".
-
An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator.
No it isn't. The Universe has an important argument in its favour in comparison to God: we are fairly certain it exists.
Argumentum ad populum?
Do you understand what that phrase means? Clearly not.
Yes Jeremy.....but is it a created universe or an uncreated universe?
I don't know, but I am sure that the Universe exists and I'm fairly sure there is no god.
Non sequiter and just redolent of the intellectual cowardice of New Atheism.
You guys should be made to consider the question of the origin of the universe on a regular basis.
Mainly because it is meet,right and condign punishment for New Atheists but also because New Atheists scuttling from this is highly entertaining.
-
The accusation of special pleading is straight out of the antitheists bumper book ......and wrong!
It's not unique to any anti-theists you might have come across, it's been the standard, obvious and entirely justified counter to the cosmological argument since it was initially raised.
An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator. Neither need be ''specially pled'' as long as the other remains an argument.
No. An uncreated universe can gradually develop. A creator can develop within that broader development, but that isn't the uncreated creator - that instantaneous complexity is special pleading if the premise is 'that which starts must have a cause'. An infinite universe can begin with simplicity, can go through periods of simplicity, but an uncaused creator requires instant complexity which is the untenable situation the cosmological argument depends upon to require a creator for the universe.
Is self creating matter untenable logically?
Yes.
Stenger and Krauss don't seem to think so. Their problem is that they try to explain it within the laws of physics......which leaves them actually with Nothing really being an unstable something.
No, they have matter emerging from quantum fluctuations - there is no 'nothing' in that model.
It is all up in the air of course but I move that the antitheist position at present is to duck the issue or to come up with a fix in which two conflicting ideas are held simultaneously. uncaused cause and cause and effect.
If I ever come across one of these anti-theists I'll let them know your concerns, but I suspect they'll be as disinterested in you claim there's no special pleading in the cosmological argument as everyone else is.
It's what the duallists call the ''give us one miracle and philosophical naturalism will explain the rest''.
Which 'duallists' would these be? Your slapdash generalisations of straw-man groups don't really help your cause, you know, any more than your flawed arguments.
O.
-
You are just giving a warmed over version of the Russellian and Dawkinsian ''Let's not mind about the origin of the universe, it just is''
I'm curious as to your animosity towards that stance - you don't like them when they overstep arbitrary boundaries you decide they have no justification to comment on, but then you equally don't like it when they decide not to venture into areas they don't feel they have sufficient basis to discuss. It's almost like you are predisposed to dislike them...
O.
-
The accusation of special pleading is straight out of the antitheists bumper book ......and wrong!
It's not unique to any anti-theists you might have come across, it's been the standard, obvious and entirely justified counter to the cosmological argument since it was initially raised.
An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator. Neither need be ''specially pled'' as long as the other remains an argument.
No. An uncreated universe can gradually develop. A creator can develop within that broader development, but that isn't the uncreated creator - that instantaneous complexity is special pleading if the premise is 'that which starts must have a cause'. An infinite universe can begin with simplicity, can go through periods of simplicity, but an uncaused creator requires instant complexity which is the untenable situation the cosmological argument depends upon to require a creator for the universe.
So what you are saying is the ''you can be a little bit universe to begin with''.
Isn't that the same as saying ''you can be a little bit pregnant''.
An Uncreated universe is an uncreated universe whether it develops or not.......
...............back to square one i'm afraid.
Also you said that an infinite universe can begin..................In what sense?
Instaneous infinite complexity? Isn't that in the same league as timeless material which you comfortably proposed earlier on.
We know that maths is infinitely complex. Is that constrained by time or is it timeless?
Loving the dialogue ,hope to hear from you soon.
-
So what you are saying is the ''you can be a little bit universe to begin with''.
I've never suggested anything else - I'm still waiting for some explanation for why an infinite reality is untenable.
Isn't that the same as saying ''you can be a little bit pregnant''.
Only if you've got an infinite term gestation period...
An Uncreated universe is an uncreated universe whether it develops or not.......
Which is why I didn't contradict the suggestion when you made it.
Also you said that an infinite universe can begin..................In what sense?
Excuse me, bad phrasing on my part. I mean that a universe can begin in an infinite reality.
Instaneous infinite complexity? Isn't that in the same league as timeless material which you comfortably proposed earlier on.
No, not even close.
We know that maths is infinitely complex. Is that constrained by time or is it timeless?
Mathematics, though, is an abstract conceptualisation, it has no actual correlate, it's an identification of patterns. It's not constrained by anything, that I'm aware of, everything can be represented by complex enough mathematics.
O.
-
So what you are saying is the ''you can be a little bit universe to begin with''.
I've never suggested anything else - I'm still waiting for some explanation for why an infinite reality is untenable.
Isn't that the same as saying ''you can be a little bit pregnant''.
Only if you've got an infinite term gestation period...
An Uncreated universe is an uncreated universe whether it develops or not.......
Which is why I didn't contradict the suggestion when you made it.
Also you said that an infinite universe can begin..................In what sense?
Excuse me, bad phrasing on my part. I mean that a universe can begin in an infinite reality.
Instaneous infinite complexity? Isn't that in the same league as timeless material which you comfortably proposed earlier on.
No, not even close.
We know that maths is infinitely complex. Is that constrained by time or is it timeless?
Mathematics, though, is an abstract conceptualisation, it has no actual correlate, it's an identification of patterns. It's not constrained by anything, that I'm aware of, everything can be represented by complex enough mathematics.
O.
I think there exist a mathematics which describes multiverses. How can patterns be identified from an unobservable multiverse. Physics seems to be intimately related to maths.
-
I think there exist a mathematics which describes multiverses. How can patterns be identified from an unobservable multiverse.
It's derived from possibilities identified in this universe and extrapolated to hypothetical other universes.
Physics seems to be intimately related to maths.
Modern physics typically relies heavily on mathematical models, especially as it explores areas that are outside of our natural cognitive understanding, because any descriptive methodology tends towards misconceptions as we find ourselves tending to revert to preconceptions.
O.
-
I think there exist a mathematics which describes multiverses. How can patterns be identified from an unobservable multiverse.
It's derived from possibilities identified in this universe and extrapolated to hypothetical other universes.
So, Not observed then.
-
Vlunderer,
The accusation of special pleading is straight out of the antitheists bumper book ......and wrong!
Actually it has nothing to do with "anti-theism" and everything to do with logic. Whether or not you happen to believe in your (or any other) god, the cosmological argument is still hopeless reasoning for it. That's not to say that there couldn't be a coherent argument that does point to a god, but the cosmological argument isn't it - it just takes an unargued and unjustified assertion ("the universe is finite and so must have started") and uses contrary special pleading for the deity of choice ("therefore an uncaused, eternal creator god") to get it off the same hook.
An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator. Neither need be ''specially pled'' as long as the other remains an argument.
Flat wrong. The universe may or may not be "uncreated", but it is observably there. Frankly I'm not sure that our ability even to frame and articulate the right questions about how eternal it might be isn't so parochial as to make the task hopeless, but either way just inserting "God" to plug the gap requires the pouffing into existence of a whole extra "something" before you can get to the point of making claims that statements about "Him" are on the same footing as those made for the universe.
Is self creating matter untenable logically? Stenger and Krauss don't seem to think so. Their problem is that they try to explain it within the laws of physics......which leaves them actually with Nothing really being an unstable something.
No they don't - I have the advantage of actually having read Krauss's book, and that's not what he says. I don't pretend to grasp all the physics but I know enough to know that you're misrepresenting him.
It is all up in the air of course but I move that the antitheist position at present is to duck the issue or to come up with a fix in which two conflicting ideas are held simultaneously. uncaused cause and cause and effect.
Then you "move" wrongly. The rationalist's (not the "anti-theist's") position is that there are competing hypotheses just now, but there's insufficient data to decide which, if any, is the correct one. "God" for this purpose is not even wrong - there's no definition, no parameters, no falsifiability test, no method for investigation, no anything to take seriously.
It's what the duallists call the ''give us one miracle and philosophical naturalism will explain the rest''.
No it isn't, and you've had your "philosophical naturalism" mistake ransacked, dhansacked and thrown against a wall (copyright: John Cooper Clarke) so many time it's not even funny now.
By all means though finally prove me wrong and at least attempt to explain why your "whateverpopsintomyhead-ism" theory of objective fact about a god is qualitatively different from my "whateverpopsintomyhead-ism" theory of objective fact about baby-delivering storks.
-
I think there exist a mathematics which describes multiverses. How can patterns be identified from an unobservable multiverse.
It's derived from possibilities identified in this universe and extrapolated to hypothetical other universes.
So, Not observed then.
You don't think our universe is observed? As it is, some of the models do include means by which we could detect those other universes by their effects on ours.
O.
-
I think there exist a mathematics which describes multiverses. How can patterns be identified from an unobservable multiverse.
It's derived from possibilities identified in this universe and extrapolated to hypothetical other universes.
So, Not observed then.
You don't think our universe is observed? As it is, some of the models do include means by which we could detect those other universes by their effects on ours.
O.
No I think our universe is observed and that it is intimately related to maths. To the point where physicality has become inextricably linked to maths. But there is maths which is not so linked. However mathematical truths are not affected by physicality.
-
An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator. Neither need be ''specially pled'' as long as the other remains an argument.
Flat wrong. The universe may or may not be "uncreated", but it is observably there.
Non sequitur to an argument about whether there can be an uncreated anything.
If you allow that the universe could be uncreated then you cannot argue against God on the grounds that he is uncreated.
Mind you have finally conceded that science has limits since we would now have a case of the uncreated.
The possibly of the uncreated remains the spectre at your feast.
Read this article for why not having a cosmological argument is problematic for the New Atheists;
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/naturalism-in-news.html
-
Vlunderer,
The accusation of special pleading is straight out of the antitheists bumper book ......and wrong!
Actually it has nothing to do with "anti-theism" and everything to do with logic. Whether or not you happen to believe in your (or any other) god, the cosmological argument is still hopeless reasoning for it. That's not to say that there couldn't be a coherent argument that does point to a god, but the cosmological argument isn't it - it just takes an unargued and unjustified assertion ("the universe is finite and so must have started")
Well there is an age of the universe and a set of conditions which are seemingly unobservable. It's called the big bang. Explain to us Hillside how we cannot possibly make an argument that the universe had a beginning. Since there is seemingly a point past which we cannot look beyond and which resembles a ''start''
If the universe having a beginning and being finite is completely unjustified....what is it that makes other arguments better. more justified and arguable? Which theory are you thinking of and why is it better?
The universe is either created......problematical for you. or uncreated .........problematical for science and antitheism since you would need to borrow uncreatedness from the stock of theology or ditch the necessity of cause and effect.
-
Vlunderer,
Non sequitur to an argument about whether there can be an uncreated anything.
Now you’ve learnt to spell non sequitur, could you perhaps trouble yourself further to find out what it means?
That wasn’t the argument at all – rather it was that you cannot put “God” (whatever you think you mean by the term) on the same footing as “the universe” when discussing eternality, not least because you need to suppose this god in the first place whereas you do not need to suppose the universe.
If you allow that the universe could be uncreated then you cannot argue against God on the grounds that he is uncreated.
Straw man - you’re missing it again. The argument against god isn’t that “He” is uncreated – it’s that you need to establish the hypothesis in the first place before troubling yourself with whether not it’s eternal. If you think otherwise, I may as well argue that you cannot argue against Stan the Stork on the basis that he’s “uncreated” or for that matter against "yg84d748to84gy" on the same basis.
Mind you have finally conceded that science has limits since we would now have a case of the uncreated.
Why finally? I’ve always said that (axiomatically) science can only deal with that which science can deal with. So what?
If you seriously think that there are phenomena which science could not address, then finally demonstrate such a thing and propose a method to investigate your claims.
Something?
Anything?
The possibly of the uncreated remains the spectre at your feast.
Not so long as you don’t overreach again and keep it as just a “possibility” it doesn’t.
Read this article for why not having a cosmological argument is problematic for the New Atheists;
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/naturalism-in-news.html
Had a quick look – it’s full of mistakes. Is it really my job to tell you why?
Well there is an age of the universe and a set of conditions which are seemingly unobservable. It's called the big bang. Explain to us Hillside how we cannot possibly make an argument that the universe had a beginning. Since there is seemingly a point past which we cannot look beyond and which resembles a ''start''
You’re confusing “a” beginning with “the” beginning, and attempting yet another argument from personal incredulity to boot.
Apart from that though…
If the universe having a beginning and being finite is completely unjustified....what is it that makes other arguments better. more justified and arguable? Which theory are you thinking of and why is it better?
It’s “better and more justified” because your contender (“God”) doesn’t even have its trousers on as an hypothesis. What on earth do you even think you mean by the term?
The universe is either created......problematical for you.
Actually, “problematic” for anyone – why would you think it to be your god wot did it rather then something else entirely?
…or uncreated .........problematical for science and antitheism since you would need to borrow uncreatedness from the stock of theology or ditch the necessity of cause and effect.
Wrong again. If (as seems likely) time itself is a property of the universe your folkloric grasp of these things breaks down entirely in any case.
-
Vlunderer,
Incidentally, by way of a coda curiously Feser seems to rely on many of the tactics that you use - straw men, ad homs etc. As one of his complaints is that the "new atheists" deal with the cruder arguments for theism but not with their better arguments, maybe you'd like to set out what those supposedly better arguments are so we can address them?
We know for example that the cosmological argument is a bad one for deism and a non-existent one for theism, but that's not to say that there aren't some arguments for either worthy of the name it is?
-
Vlunderer,
Non sequitur to an argument about whether there can be an uncreated anything.
Now you’ve learnt to spell non sequitur, could you perhaps trouble yourself further to find out what it means?
That wasn’t the argument at all – rather it was that you cannot put “God” (whatever you think you mean by the term) on the same footing as “the universe” when discussing eternality, not least because you need to suppose this god in the first place whereas you do not need to suppose the universe.
If you allow that the universe could be uncreated then you cannot argue against God on the grounds that he is uncreated.
Straw man - you’re missing it again. The argument against god isn’t that “He” is uncreated – it’s that you need to establish the hypothesis in the first place before troubling yourself with whether not it’s eternal. If you think otherwise, I may as well argue that you cannot argue against Stan the Stork on the basis that he’s “uncreated” or for that matter against "yg84d748to84gy" on the same basis.
Mind you have finally conceded that science has limits since we would now have a case of the uncreated.
Why finally? I’ve always said that (axiomatically) science can only deal with that which science can deal with. So what?
If you seriously think that there are phenomena which science could not address, then finally demonstrate such a thing and propose a method to investigate your claims.
Something?
Anything?
The possibly of the uncreated remains the spectre at your feast.
Not so long as you don’t overreach again and keep it as just a “possibility” it doesn’t.
Read this article for why not having a cosmological argument is problematic for the New Atheists;
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/naturalism-in-news.html
Had a quick look – it’s full of mistakes. Is it really my job to tell you why?
Be my guest.........(This'll be a laugh )
-
Vlunderer,
Non sequitur to an argument about whether there can be an uncreated anything.
Now you’ve learnt to spell non sequitur, could you perhaps trouble yourself further to find out what it means?
That wasn’t the argument at all – rather it was that you cannot put “God” (whatever you think you mean by the term) on the same footing as “the universe” when discussing eternality, not least because you need to suppose this god in the first place whereas you do not need to suppose the universe.
If you allow that the universe could be uncreated then you cannot argue against God on the grounds that he is uncreated.
Straw man - you’re missing it again. The argument against god isn’t that “He” is uncreated – it’s that you need to establish the hypothesis in the first place before troubling yourself with whether not it’s eternal. If you think otherwise, I may as well argue that you cannot argue against Stan the Stork on the basis that he’s “uncreated” or for that matter against "yg84d748to84gy" on the same basis.
Mind you have finally conceded that science has limits since we would now have a case of the uncreated.
Why finally? I’ve always said that (axiomatically) science can only deal with that which science can deal with. So what?
If you seriously think that there are phenomena which science could not address, then finally demonstrate such a thing and propose a method to investigate your claims.
Something?
Anything?
The possibly of the uncreated remains the spectre at your feast.
Not so long as you don’t overreach again and keep it as just a “possibility” it doesn’t.
Read this article for why not having a cosmological argument is problematic for the New Atheists;
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/naturalism-in-news.html
Had a quick look – it’s full of mistakes. Is it really my job to tell you why?
Well there is an age of the universe and a set of conditions which are seemingly unobservable. It's called the big bang. Explain to us Hillside how we cannot possibly make an argument that the universe had a beginning. Since there is seemingly a point past which we cannot look beyond and which resembles a ''start''
You’re confusing “a” beginning with “the” beginning, and attempting yet another argument from personal incredulity to boot.
Apart from that though…
If the universe having a beginning and being finite is completely unjustified....what is it that makes other arguments better. more justified and arguable? Which theory are you thinking of and why is it better?
It’s “better and more justified” because your contender (“God”) doesn’t even have its trousers on as an hypothesis. What on earth do you even think you mean by the term?
The universe is either created......problematical for you.
Actually, “problematic” for anyone – why would you think it to be your god wot did it rather then something else entirely?
…or uncreated .........problematical for science and antitheism since you would need to borrow uncreatedness from the stock of theology or ditch the necessity of cause and effect.
Wrong again. If (as seems likely) time itself is a property of the universe your folkloric grasp of these things breaks down entirely in any case.
Hillside this has less content in it than usual...mind you 50% of fuck all is still fuck all.
There is one resort to ''Oh well God isn't proved anyway.''
Perhaps you're missing the whole point of the debate having crashed in half way through.
A universe existing tells us nothing about whether it created itself or whether it was created as you seem to make out.
That means you haven't even got an argument Son.
-
Non sequiter and just redolent of the intellectual cowardice of New Atheism.
Wrong as usual.
You guys should be made to consider the question of the origin of the universe on a regular basis.
I do. So far the answer is still "don't know". But adding a god into the equation just makes it harder.
By the way, I think you Christians should be made to consider the question of the origin of God on a regular basis. You seem to be adept at sweeping it under the carpet.
Mainly because it is meet,right and condign punishment for New Atheists but also because New Atheists scuttling from this is highly entertaining.
The bounds of your self delusion are limitless. You think of considering the origins of the Universe as a punishment?
Anyway, tell me about the origins of your god.
-
Non sequiter and just redolent of the intellectual cowardice of New Atheism.
Wrong as usual.
You guys should be made to consider the question of the origin of the universe on a regular basis.
I do. So far the answer is still "don't know". But adding a god into the equation just makes it harder.
By the way, I think you Christians should be made to consider the question of the origin of God on a regular basis. You seem to be adept at sweeping it under the carpet.
Mainly because it is meet,right and condign punishment for New Atheists but also because New Atheists scuttling from this is highly entertaining.
The bounds of your self delusion are limitless. You think of considering the origins of the Universe as a punishment?
Anyway, tell me about the origins of your god.
always been there so not really right to talk about origins Jeremy.
-
Non sequiter and just redolent of the intellectual cowardice of New Atheism.
Wrong as usual.
You guys should be made to consider the question of the origin of the universe on a regular basis.
I do. So far the answer is still "don't know". But adding a god into the equation just makes it harder.
By the way, I think you Christians should be made to consider the question of the origin of God on a regular basis. You seem to be adept at sweeping it under the carpet.
Mainly because it is meet,right and condign punishment for New Atheists but also because New Atheists scuttling from this is highly entertaining.
The bounds of your self delusion are limitless. You think of considering the origins of the Universe as a punishment?
Anyway, tell me about the origins of your god.
always been there so not really right to talk about origins Jeremy.
The universe has always been there then.
That was easy
-
Non sequiter and just redolent of the intellectual cowardice of New Atheism.
Wrong as usual.
You guys should be made to consider the question of the origin of the universe on a regular basis.
I do. So far the answer is still "don't know". But adding a god into the equation just makes it harder.
By the way, I think you Christians should be made to consider the question of the origin of God on a regular basis. You seem to be adept at sweeping it under the carpet.
Mainly because it is meet,right and condign punishment for New Atheists but also because New Atheists scuttling from this is highly entertaining.
The bounds of your self delusion are limitless. You think of considering the origins of the Universe as a punishment?
Anyway, tell me about the origins of your god.
always been there so not really right to talk about origins Jeremy.
The universe has always been there then.
That was easy
There's just the small matter of the big bang........or was that just the cosmic equivalent of a discrete but audible Botty pop?
.......That was easy.
-
Vlunderer,
Be my guest.........(This'll be a laugh )
Oh no no no…given your track history here of deep, deep dishonesty you don’t seriously think you can just post a link and then have me critique it only to be met with your usual cocktail of dull incomprehension, straw men and abuse do you?
Do you?
Well then, here’s the deal: you set out the arguments you think to be persuasive and I’ll tell you why you’re wrong.
Look, I’ll even help you along a little: Feser commits a series of basic logical fallacies that you deploy in your own efforts here. I suggest you try at least to avoid repeating them if you seriously think you finally have an argument to make.
Hillside this has less content in it than usual...mind you 50% of fuck all is still fuck all.
That you fail utterly to grasp and so just ignore the “content” says nothing to the fact that there is in fact plenty of it. It’s clearly set out, albeit that you just respond with your usual avoidance and evasion. I told you for example why “God” and “the universe” are not on an even footing when discussing possible non-creation. Why did you just dodge that?
Seriously, why?
There is one resort to ''Oh well God isn't proved anyway.''
“Proved”? Try getting out of the ghetto into which you’ve painted yourself of "not even wrong" before worrying about proof.
Really – why not finally tell us the method you propose to get you off the hook of your “whateverpopsintomyhead-ism” notion of objective fact?
Surely you must have something more in the locker than mindless assertion mustn’t you?
Mustn’t you?
(Cue sound of Vlad disappearing yet again out of the nearest fire exit.)
Perhaps you're missing the whole point of the debate having crashed in half way through.
A universe existing tells us nothing about whether it created itself or whether it was created as you seem to make out.
And perhaps you have. No it doesn’t, but the bonkers cosmological argument with which you’re in thrall positively asserts that it did have a beginning, so the burden of proof (another idea you’ve never understood) is entirely with you to make the case for it.
Good luck!
That means you haven't even got an argument Son.
Actually it means that you’ve been buried by several arguments, only you’re too slow or too dishonest to rebut them..
You choose.
Son.
-
Vlundererer,
There's just the small matter of the big bang........or was that just the cosmic equivalent of a discrete but audible Botty pop?
.......That was easy.
Only if you're dimwitted enough to confuse "a" beginning with "the" beginning despite having your mistake pointed out to you already.
Perhaps if you didn't keep ignoring the arguments that undo you you'd be less likely to vlunder into the same mistakes over and over again?
-
Vlunderer,
Be my guest.........(This'll be a laugh )
Oh no no no…given your track history here of deep, deep dishonesty you don’t seriously think you can just post a link and then have me critique it only to be met with your usual cocktail of dull incomprehension, straw men and abuse do you?
Do you?
Well then, here’s the deal: you set out the arguments you think to be persuasive and I’ll tell you why you’re wrong.
Look, I’ll even help you along a little: Feser commits a series of basic logical fallacies that you deploy in your own efforts here. I suggest you try at least to avoid repeating them if you seriously think you finally have an argument to make.
Hillside this has less content in it than usual...mind you 50% of fuck all is still fuck all.
That you fail utterly to grasp and so just ignore the “content” says nothing to the fact that there is in fact plenty of it. It’s clearly set out, albeit that you just respond with your usual avoidance and evasion. I told you for example why “God” and “the universe” are not on an even footing when discussing possible non-creation. Why did you just dodge that?
Seriously, why?
There is one resort to ''Oh well God isn't proved anyway.''
“Proved”? Try getting out of the ghetto into which you’ve painted yourself of "not even wrong" before worrying about proof.
Really – why not finally tell us the method you propose to get you off the hook of your “whateverpopsintomyhead-ism” notion of objective fact?
Surely you must have something more in the locker than mindless assertion mustn’t you?
Mustn’t you?
(Cue sound of Vlad disappearing yet again out of the nearest fire exit.)
Perhaps you're missing the whole point of the debate having crashed in half way through.
A universe existing tells us nothing about whether it created itself or whether it was created as you seem to make out.
And perhaps you have. No it doesn’t, but the bonkers cosmological argument with which you’re in thrall positively asserts that it did have a beginning, so the burden of proof (another idea you’ve never understood) is entirely with you to make the case for it.
Good luck!
That means you haven't even got an argument Son.
Actually it means that you’ve been buried by several arguments, only you’re too slow or too dishonest to rebut them..
You choose.
Son.
I'm a dullard.
Feser is a dullard.
Aristotle was a dullard
Only Bluehillside.....Antitheisms Mr Big has the knock down arguments........
Bring 'em on son.
-
Vlundererer,
There's just the small matter of the big bang........or was that just the cosmic equivalent of a discrete but audible Botty pop?
.......That was easy.
Only if you're dimwitted enough to confuse "a" beginning with "the" beginning despite having your mistake pointed out to you already.
Perhaps if you didn't keep ignoring the arguments that undo you you'd be less likely to vlunder into the same mistakes over and over again?
All I say is why something and not nothing? Hillside.
The big bang being just a beginning? That's possible but how would we know.....using science?
-
Oh and Hillside, before I forget......If you are arguing an uncreated universe let's have no more of that ''who created God'' stuff from you.
-
Vlunderer,
I'm a dullard.
Feser is a dullard.
Aristotle was a dullard
Only Bluehillside.....Antitheisms Mr Big has the knock down arguments........
Bring 'em on son.
You?
Yes. And/or dishonest.
Feser?
Don't know yet, but the obvious mistakes so far are not a good portent.
Aristotle?
No, and your effort to hide behind behind him is noted.
As are your further evasions.
Son.
-
Vlunderer,
All I say is why something and not nothing? Hillside.
The big bang being just a beginning? That's possible but how would we know.....using science?
Actually yes, but more to the point that's not "all you said" at all. You made a mistake about "a" beginning and "the" beginning, and then repeated it.
Maybe if you didn't just ignore every argument you can't rebut you'd stop vlundering like this?
-
Vlunderer,
Oh and Hillside, before I forget......If you are arguing an uncreated universe let's have no more of that ''who created God'' stuff from you.
And again with the same mistakes. Why not instead try reading the rebuttals you've had and actually responding to them? That way you might at least minimise the embarrassment you're bringing on yourself here.
-
Read this article for why not having a cosmological argument is problematic for the New Atheists;
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/naturalism-in-news.html
Point 1 is a straw-man - neurologists aren't suggesting consciousness resides within particular neurons, they are saying consciousness is an emergent property of the activity, collectively, of neurons.
Point 2 is one that's actively under discussion in physics - the best models we currently have suggest that time is a property that emerges with the universe, not something that is imposed from outside, but those models of the early universe are still awaiting experimental backing. The paradigm shift required to try to adapt to a timeless idea of physics is inconceivable, literally: it's beyond the cognitive capacity of a brain that has evolved within a time-laden region to conceptualise such a thing directly. Change can be defined as the actualisation of potential as much as it likes, but defining a time-dependent concept in terms of other time-dependent concepts doesn't mean that any of it is justified in a time-less domain.
Point 3 - science does not require a cosmological argument - the universe is finite, it has a defined start, but time starts with that beginning. What exists beyond that universe, that domain into which the universe manifests is a realm with its own natural laws that is, functionally, infinite, there is no requirement for any 'creator' urge, there is just the natural existence of energy which cannot be created or destroyed, merely re-ordered.
O.
-
Oh and Hillside, before I forget......If you are arguing an uncreated universe let's have no more of that ''who created God'' stuff from you.
They are fundamentally different propositions. The description of the universe's creation is from simple event to complexity through gradual processes. If you mean the claim of an extra-universal infinite (and therefore uncaused) reality, that's still a basic simplicity - a region of quantum interactions - rather than ordered complexity.
In making the case for a deliberate agency 'causing' the universe you have to explain the prior existence of something complex enough to conceive of a universe and control and influence whatever environment it exists within sufficiently to effect that creation.
It's the spontaneous existence of complexity that's undermining the claim - if you wanted to extend the idea and make it an eternal complexity, that still requires an explanation. The complexity of the universe is explained from simple origins. The existence of the universe is explained from simple extra-universal concepts. The existence of a complex intelligence as a creator, as yet, remains unexplained.
O.
-
Point 2 is one that's actively under discussion in physics - the best models we currently have suggest that time is a property that emerges with the universe, not something that is imposed from outside, but those models of the early universe are still awaiting experimental backing. The paradigm shift required to try to adapt to a timeless idea of physics is inconceivable, literally: it's beyond the cognitive capacity of a brain that has evolved within a time-laden region to conceptualise such a thing directly.
Not so fast Mr Bond - perhaps not; try The End of Time by Julian Barbour. Popular science but at the "Bloody hell, this is difficult" end of the spectrum. Hard going and requires a significant investment of time and effort, but it persuaded me.
-
Point 2 is one that's actively under discussion in physics - the best models we currently have suggest that time is a property that emerges with the universe, not something that is imposed from outside, but those models of the early universe are still awaiting experimental backing. The paradigm shift required to try to adapt to a timeless idea of physics is inconceivable, literally: it's beyond the cognitive capacity of a brain that has evolved within a time-laden region to conceptualise such a thing directly.
Not so fast Mr Bond - perhaps not; try The End of Time by Julian Barbour. Popular science but at the "Bloody hell, this is difficult" end of the spectrum. Hard going and requires a significant investment of time and effort, but it persuaded me.
Sorry, persuaded you of what? From what I can see in a very quick review his work revolves around the idea that quantum activity occurs outside of conventional understandings of time (at least) if not outside of time entirely. This is, essentially, part of what I've been saying in order for the instigation of our universe to have occured in a region where time didn't exist.
Whether our perception of time is compatible with quantum effects within the universe is questionable, it seems entirely possible that it's a referential framework we can utilise to describe and define macroscopic effects - of which we are one. However, as I understand it, the maths at the moment doesn't work reliably for timeless physics - obviously, that's something that people are probably working on!
I shall add Barbour to my seemingly infinitely expanding 'to read' list :)
O.
O.
-
Non sequiter and just redolent of the intellectual cowardice of New Atheism.
Wrong as usual.
You guys should be made to consider the question of the origin of the universe on a regular basis.
I do. So far the answer is still "don't know". But adding a god into the equation just makes it harder.
By the way, I think you Christians should be made to consider the question of the origin of God on a regular basis. You seem to be adept at sweeping it under the carpet.
Mainly because it is meet,right and condign punishment for New Atheists but also because New Atheists scuttling from this is highly entertaining.
The bounds of your self delusion are limitless. You think of considering the origins of the Universe as a punishment?
Anyway, tell me about the origins of your god.
always been there so not really right to talk about origins Jeremy.
Bingo!
-
Read this article for why not having a cosmological argument is problematic for the New Atheists;
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/naturalism-in-news.html
Point 1 is a straw-man - neurologists aren't suggesting consciousness resides within particular neurons, they are saying consciousness is an emergent property of the activity, collectively, of neurons.
Point 2 is one that's actively under discussion in physics - the best models we currently have suggest that time is a property that emerges with the universe, not something that is imposed from outside, but those models of the early universe are still awaiting experimental backing. The paradigm shift required to try to adapt to a timeless idea of physics is inconceivable, literally: it's beyond the cognitive capacity of a brain that has evolved within a time-laden region to conceptualise such a thing directly. Change can be defined as the actualisation of potential as much as it likes, but defining a time-dependent concept in terms of other time-dependent concepts doesn't mean that any of it is justified in a time-less domain.
Point 3 - science does not require a cosmological argument - the universe is finite, it has a defined start, but time starts with that beginning. What exists beyond that universe, that domain into which the universe manifests is a realm with its own natural laws that is, functionally, infinite, there is no requirement for any 'creator' urge, there is just the natural existence of energy which cannot be created or destroyed, merely re-ordered.
O.
Complete non sequiter
The part about antitheist neurologists? Reductionists were late into the emergent scene. If the universe is finite, why are you chuntering on about timeless matter? Is the the timeless matter uncreated. Anything uncreated violates cause and effect so science is not competent to cover this.
You cannot avoid the two possibilities, created matter or uncreated matter. Neither of which comes under the remit of science since something has to be out of time.
-
Vlunderer,
I'm a dullard.
Feser is a dullard.
Aristotle was a dullard
Only Bluehillside.....Antitheisms Mr Big has the knock down arguments........
Bring 'em on son.
You?
Yes. And/or dishonest.
Feser?
Don't know yet, but the obvious mistakes so far are not a good portent.
Aristotle?
No, and your effort to hide behind behind him is noted.
As are your further evasions.
Son.
That's all very well but what about demonstrating that Feser is wrong about the New atheism.
-
That's all very well but what about demonstrating that Feser is wrong about the New atheism.
To the same standard as that used by Feser?
Okay...
Feser is wrong because Socrates, Hume, Russell and Red Giant's six year old grandmother.
-
;D
-
That's all very well but what about demonstrating that Feser is wrong about the New atheism.
To the same standard as that used by Feser?
Okay...
Feser is wrong because Socrates, Hume, Russell and Red Giant's six year old grandmother.
I don't think Russell had a view on the origins of the universe except a ''Don't go there'' Socrates and Hume? Were they big on cosmic beginnings?
-
Complete non sequiter
You cite a blog that, in its own construction, calls out the fact it's making three points. I comment on those three points - how does that constitute a non sequitur?
The part about antitheist neurologists? Reductionists were late into the emergent scene. If the universe is finite, why are you chuntering on about timeless matter? Is the the timeless matter uncreated. Anything uncreated violates cause and effect so science is not competent to cover this.
Because there is a difference between the universe (finite) and the reality in which that universe resides (possibly finite, possibly infinite, possibly something else given our limited understanding of the nature of time).
You cannot avoid the two possibilities, created matter or uncreated matter. Neither of which comes under the remit of science since something has to be out of time.
I haven't tried to avoid the possibilities - I'm perfectly content with matter emerging from the big bang, an event in an otherwise timeless/infinite reality. Why you can arbitrarily define something as beyond the remit of science is something I'm curious about, though.
O.
-
Complete non sequiter
You cite a blog that, in its own construction, calls out the fact it's making three points. I comment on those three points - how does that constitute a non sequitur?
The part about antitheist neurologists? Reductionists were late into the emergent scene. If the universe is finite, why are you chuntering on about timeless matter? Is the the timeless matter uncreated. Anything uncreated violates cause and effect so science is not competent to cover this.
Because there is a difference between the universe (finite) and the reality in which that universe resides (possibly finite, possibly infinite, possibly something else given our limited understanding of the nature of time).
You cannot avoid the two possibilities, created matter or uncreated matter. Neither of which comes under the remit of science since something has to be out of time.
I haven't tried to avoid the possibilities - I'm perfectly content with matter emerging from the big bang, an event in an otherwise timeless/infinite reality. Why you can arbitrarily define something as beyond the remit of science is something I'm curious about, though.
O.
Rider. The uncreated is beyond the remit of science.
Attempts to shoehorn it into science have failed so far most notably Stenger and Krauss who argue that Nothing is actually unstable....and therefore an unstable something. But there is a more subtle failure. Science cannot explain uncreated matter but merely states that matter is there.
Theology has the question though, why something and not nothing (That's a real nothing.
-
Why something and not nothing is a pseudo-question, which gets 15 year old girls wetting their pants, because they think it's all profound and doomy. Oh sir.
-
Rider. The uncreated is beyond the remit of science.
Why? Observable phenomena are the remit of science, regardless of their putative origin (or lack thereof).
Attempts to shoehorn it into science have failed so far most notably Stenger and Krauss who argue that Nothing is actually unstable....and therefore an unstable something.
No they don't, this has been explained to you. What they claim is that what you consider to be nothing is an unstable, active potential.
But there is a more subtle failure. Science cannot explain uncreated matter but merely states that matter is there.
Science doesn't need to explain uncreated matter, we have a very.good model of how matter emerged during the big bang, from the energy that came before it. I presume you mean that uncreated energy, but we have an emerging explanation for that, yet you continue to mischaracterise the work of the likes of Krauss.
Theology has the question though, why something and not nothing (That's a real nothing.
Yes, theology is begging the question, we knew this already. What gives you any basis for thinking there's a 'why'?
O.
-
Rider. The uncreated is beyond the remit of science.
Why? Observable phenomena are the remit of science, regardless of their putative origin (or lack thereof).
Attempts to shoehorn it into science have failed so far most notably Stenger and Krauss who argue that Nothing is actually unstable....and therefore an unstable something.
No they don't, this has been explained to you. What they claim is that what you consider to be nothing is an unstable, active potential.
Ah......a something.....with properties.
-
Ah......a something.....with properties.
Yes, hence an infinite reality.
O.
-
Ah......a something.....with properties.
Yes, hence an infinite reality.
O.
But God can be described as an infinite reality. That aside, you are conceding that the physicists nothing is a something.
Why did this infinite something become unstable 13 billion years ago and not 30 billion years....or indeed last Tuesday?
-
I think as regards 'nothing'. Vlad is correct here. The physics nothing is a specific term and does not map onto the idea of nothing. That said we have then no example of nothing, so any statement about it seems flawed to me. Rather like the idea of talking about existence without the idea of time, nothing seems to defy any sensible discussion.
I also have no idea what referring to something as an 'infinite reality' means. The two words don't appear to relate. It reads a bit like Chomsky's green ideas.
-
I think as regards 'nothing'. Vlad is correct here. The physics nothing is a specific term and does not map onto the idea of nothing.
I'd agree that physics' nothing doesn't map onto vlad's idea of nothing, but that's more a problem for vlad than physics.
Vlad's nothing has the property (/ies) of 'not being able to become something/ being capable of stopping something coming into existence'. So according to Vlad's reasoning as it's got a property it must be a something. In addition neither vlad nor anyone else has ever provided a single shred of evidence or reasoning to show that a 'vlad nothing' did or could exist.
A physics nothing can lose be described as starting with something and taking everything possible away from it and then 'seeing' 'what's left'. This type of nothing therefore has some evidence and reasoning to back it up.
Even more crudely vlad nothing is saying 0=0=0=0=0=0
(Maths/) Physics nothing says 0=1-1=(2×3)-6=8-2^3...
So unless vlad can suddenly find some way of showing his nothing is reasonable, then I think we're entitled to ignore his pronouncements on the matter.
-
But God can be described as an infinite reality.
Not without distorting the common meaning of 'God' beyond any even vague understanding. An infinite reality in which complexity arises through natural processes is one thing, but a spontaneous complex intelligence manifesting as reality is something completely different.
That aside, you are conceding that the physicists nothing is a something.
No, it's conceding that many people aren't capable of grasping that 'nothing' can be a balancing act between two opposites - matter and anti-matter in equal proportions are, on balance, nothing.
Why did this infinite something become unstable 13 billion years ago and not 30 billion years....or indeed last Tuesday?
Who says that it didn't? Who says that this universe is the only universe? As it stands, at the moment, we don't know - and we may never know - what particular 'events' or 'conditions' resulted in our universe beginning. Why presume from physical constraints on data transiting that universal boundary that 'God'?
O.
-
Ah......a something.....with properties.
Yes, hence an infinite reality.
O.
But God can be described as an infinite reality. That aside, you are conceding that the physicists nothing is a something.
Why did this infinite something become unstable 13 billion years ago and not 30 billion years....or indeed last Tuesday?
Why did God choose to create the Universe 13 billion years ago and not 30 billion years ago or last Tuesday.
-
This shows the idiocy of why questions. Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?
-
This shows the idiocy of why questions. Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?
Now that would have been pretty! ;D
-
This shows the idiocy of why questions. Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?
Now that would have been pretty! ;D
You can always imagine them, eh, Floo? ;D
-
Dear Wigs,
Hi! Mr idiot here, forgive my idiocy but I will keep on asking WHY!!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Wigs,
Hi! Mr idiot here, forgive my idiocy but I will keep on asking WHY!!
Gonnagle.
Yeah, but why?
-
This shows the idiocy of why questions. Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?
It's a perfectly good question of the company you now keep Wigginhall........Namely those who think this universe had a start but came from something pre-existent and infinite.
If you are going to ''pull a Stenger'' and say that the universe came into existence because nothing is unstable then asking why 13 million years ago and not 30 million years ago or last Tuesday is a reasonable question.
It is then ridiculous to then appeal to anything subsequent to the big bang for an answer i.e. the manifest laws of physics.
The question is valid.
-
This shows the idiocy of why questions. Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?
It's a perfectly good question of the company you now keep Wigginhall........Namely those who think this universe had a start but came from something pre-existent and infinite.
That would include Christians because God is something pre-existent and infinite.
-
I think as regards 'nothing'. Vlad is correct here. The physics nothing is a specific term and does not map onto the idea of nothing.
I'd agree that physics' nothing doesn't map onto vlad's idea of nothing, but that's more a problem for vlad than physics.
Vlad's nothing has the property (/ies) of 'not being able to become something/ being capable of stopping something coming into existence'. So according to Vlad's reasoning as it's got a property it must be a something. In addition neither vlad nor anyone else has ever provided a single shred of evidence or reasoning to show that a 'vlad nothing' did or could exist.
Even more crudely vlad nothing is saying 0=0=0=0=0=0
(Maths/) Physics nothing says 0=1-1=(2×3)-6=8-2^3...
What then is unreasonable about 0=0=0=0=0=0?
-
This shows the idiocy of why questions. Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?
It's a perfectly good question of the company you now keep Wigginhall........Namely those who think this universe had a start but came from something pre-existent and infinite.
That would include Christians because God is something pre-existent and infinite.
Yeh...........so why the bollocks about who created God then.
-
This shows the idiocy of why questions. Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?
It's a perfectly good question of the company you now keep Wigginhall........Namely those who think this universe had a start but came from something pre-existent and infinite.
That would include Christians because God is something pre-existent and infinite.
Yeh...........so why the bollocks about who created God then.
It's the obvious argument to the argument from apparent design.
O.
-
What then is unreasonable about 0=0=0=0=0=0?
In and of itself, nothing. It is, however, merely an example of how nothing can be achieved it isn't sufficient to describe nothing - there are other ways in which zero can be achieved.
O.
-
What then is unreasonable about 0=0=0=0=0=0?
In and of itself, nothing. It is, however, merely an example of how nothing can be achieved it isn't sufficient to describe nothing - there are other ways in which zero can be achieved.
O.
But the problem is that if you are calling the big bang zero then anything previous has been cancelled out plus you are left with the question how do you get something from nothing?
Are you saying that the universe is the operation of maths?
Who or what is working the numbers then to get the all important ''zero''
-
But the problem is that if you are calling the big bang zero then anything previous has been cancelled out plus you are left with the question how do you get something from nothing?
If I were calling the big bang zero then yes, I'd have a problem. I'm not, though, so that's lucky.
Are you saying that the universe is the operation of maths?
No, I'm saying that the universe can be represented by the operation of maths. Applied maths is always an analogy.
Who or what is working the numbers then to get the all important ''zero''
Natural laws.
O.
-
But the problem is that if you are calling the big bang zero then anything previous has been cancelled out plus you are left with the question how do you get something from nothing?
If I were calling the big bang zero then yes, I'd have a problem. I'm not, though, so that's lucky.
Are you saying that the universe is the operation of maths?
No, I'm saying that the universe can be represented by the operation of maths. Applied maths is always an analogy.
Who or what is working the numbers then to get the all important ''zero''
Natural laws.
O.
uncaused matter or reality as you have put it is not natural.
Oh and before ye go.........Which natural laws?
-
I think as regards 'nothing'. Vlad is correct here. The physics nothing is a specific term and does not map onto the idea of nothing.
I'd agree that physics' nothing doesn't map onto vlad's idea of nothing, but that's more a problem for vlad than physics.
Vlad's nothing has the property (/ies) of 'not being able to become something/ being capable of stopping something coming into existence'. So according to Vlad's reasoning as it's got a property it must be a something. In addition neither vlad nor anyone else has ever provided a single shred of evidence or reasoning to show that a 'vlad nothing' did or could exist.
A physics nothing can lose be described as starting with something and taking everything possible away from it and then 'seeing' 'what's left'. This type of nothing therefore has some evidence and reasoning to back it up.
Even more crudely vlad nothing is saying 0=0=0=0=0=0
(Maths/) Physics nothing says 0=1-1=(2×3)-6=8-2^3...
So unless vlad can suddenly find some way of showing his nothing is reasonable, then I think we're entitled to ignore his pronouncements on the matter.
The physicist isn't talking about a nothing but something which is unstable so it is not in anyway an argument for or against a Vlad nothing which is non being.
You know you are uncertain about this argument being any kind of argument so you sneak in the second ''argument'' which is that there are many ways to nothing. The trouble is you are using entities from that which exist now which is circularity of argument.
Also you propose a nothing 0 which the New Atheist physicists do not actually propose.
My nothing has the ''property'' of not being which renders any talk of ability to become redundant.
If you think that not being can become something then watch out because you assert that God does not exist. ;)
-
uncaused matter or reality as you have put it is not natural.
He asserted, baselessly.
Oh and before ye go.........Which natural laws?
All of them. The ones we're aware of, the ones we've hypothesised and not yet confirmed or refuted and the ones that we've not even started to explore, yet.
O.
-
uncaused matter or reality as you have put it is not natural.
Uncaused God is not natural.