tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8055760967236414091..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Empirical evidence for GodRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20705687062554343622009-11-06T06:54:08.817-05:002009-11-06T06:54:08.817-05:00Vytautas said...
Steve,
Is this a good argument...Vytautas said... <br /><i><br />Steve,<br /><br />Is this a good argument for God?<br /><br />http://privyfisherman.blogspot.com/2009/09/argument-for-existence-of-god-from.html</i><br /><br /> Vytautas,<br />While I don't come close to Steve's apologetical ability, I think that the argument made in that link you gave commits the Fallacy of Composition. Namely, attributing to the whole, the characteristics of the parts. Just because a part of the universe is not self-sufficient (or appears to not to be self-sufficient), doesn't mean the entire universe is not self-sufficient. <br /><br />If matter is just molecules in motion (or the changing manifestations of energy), then a materialist could argue that the universe as a whole might still be self-sufficient even though there are apparent internal changes that happen within it. <br /><br />Also, a materialist who holds to the "block view" of physics could argue that the seeming changes that undergird the idea that parts of the universe aren't self-sufficent (i.e. are contingent) are merely apparent and not real.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32999354451710115032009-11-05T18:20:51.095-05:002009-11-05T18:20:51.095-05:00I thought of O.J. Simpson when I read your hypothe...<i>I thought of O.J. Simpson when I read your hypothetical. What if O.J. really did commit the murder, but then completely deluded himself into thinking and believing and feeling with every fiber of his body and soul that he didn't do it, and that someone else did it. And then his subconscious manufactured a fabricated memory that he was at the church by himself at the time of the murder.<br /><br />Why would a jury have to accept that?</i><br /><br /><br />If O.J. seems sincere that he did not do it, then (because they don't know that he is deceiving himself) they ought to consider that in the evidence. They ought to also ask whether or not O.J. is the type of person who would lie about his supposed memories, whether or not he's undergoing cognitive dysfunction, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65841543855814136592009-11-05T13:08:15.666-05:002009-11-05T13:08:15.666-05:00Steve,
Is this a good argument for God?
http://p...Steve,<br /><br />Is this a good argument for God?<br /><br />http://privyfisherman.blogspot.com/2009/09/argument-for-existence-of-god-from.htmlVytautashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563655929016752682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41376249325813338152009-11-05T13:05:46.955-05:002009-11-05T13:05:46.955-05:00"After all, suppose you're on trial for a...<i>"After all, suppose you're on trial for a murder, and the suckers who framed you did a real good job, so that it is almost glaringly obvious you did it. But in fact you did not do it, and you remember distinctly being in church at the time of the crime, though no one else was there, because there wasn't a service going on--you were just in the sanctuary praying, say. Why not include your own memory, that of being in church, among the evidence to consider?"</i><br /><br />I thought of O.J. Simpson when I read your hypothetical. What if O.J. really did commit the murder, but then completely deluded himself into thinking and believing and feeling with every fiber of his body and soul that he didn't do it, and that someone else did it. And then his subconscious manufactured a fabricated memory that he was at the church by himself at the time of the murder.<br /><br />Why would a jury have to accept that?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24025453276049919442009-11-05T12:18:39.899-05:002009-11-05T12:18:39.899-05:00I agree with you on the value of the argument from...I agree with you on the value of the argument from religious experience.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87057475205693006692009-11-05T11:57:46.954-05:002009-11-05T11:57:46.954-05:00I think Peter van Inwagen makes an interesting poi...I think Peter van Inwagen makes an interesting point in his essay on W.K. Clifford's famed maxim.<br /><br />If I remember correctly, he asks the question, what sorts of things count as evidence? Can things "internal" to me, such as my memories, experiences, etc., count as evidence?<br /><br />If so, then I think the argument from religious experience works pretty good. In fact I really like the ARE.<br /><br />And I don't know of any good reasons to think of why we shouldn't include "internal" factors as evidence.<br /><br />After all, suppose you're on trial for a murder, and the suckers who framed you did a real good job, so that it is almost glaringly obvious you did it. But in fact you did not do it, and you remember distinctly being in church at the time of the crime, though no one else was there, because there wasn't a service going on--you were just in the sanctuary praying, say. Why not include your own memory, that of being in church, among the evidence to consider?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com