37
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 52:
Line 52: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Arguments for the existence of God (view source)
Revision as of 01:32, July 7, 2008
, 01:32, July 7, 2008→Aristotle: reply again
::: Well, more accurately, science says that entropy increases over time in a closed system. But this still does not rule out an infinite chain of events: even in a closed system, it's just the case that eventually, any events which happen will be pretty boring, since they'll just be the static almost-but-not-quite-absolute-zero distribution of matter through space.
::: Well, more accurately, science says that entropy increases over time in a closed system. But this still does not rule out an infinite chain of events: even in a closed system, it's just the case that eventually, any events which happen will be pretty boring, since they'll just be the static almost-but-not-quite-absolute-zero distribution of matter through space.
::: In re: the Big Bang. Remember that the Kalam formulation of the Cosmological Argument says that anything which ''begins to exist'' must have a cause. The Big Bang is an event, not an object. So as it stands, the Kalam argument is inadequate. You are correct, of course, in saying that if it were changed to admit events as well as objects, the Big Bang would need an explanation, but as it is presented (and as it is presented in the given source, Craig's book), this objection stands. This is why I said "further development is possible". [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 14:45, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::: In re: the Big Bang. Remember that the Kalam formulation of the Cosmological Argument says that anything which ''begins to exist'' must have a cause. The Big Bang is an event, not an object. So as it stands, the Kalam argument is inadequate. You are correct, of course, in saying that if it were changed to admit events as well as objects, the Big Bang would need an explanation, but as it is presented (and as it is presented in the given source, Craig's book), this objection stands. This is why I said "further development is possible". [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 14:45, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::: So... do you have any further objection to the inclusion of my edits? For your reference, the last edit you reverted actually raises a classic problem for omniscience. There are a few ways out, but the problem is worth noting in an article on this topic. The argument goes like this:
::::* If any subject S '''knows''' some proposition ''p'', then ''p'' is true.
::::* An omniscient being knows everything, including the proposition "Philip will have X for lunch tomorrow", where X is whatever you'll actually have for lunch. Let's call it a sandwich.
::::* So it's true that you'll have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow.
::::* But if it's true that you'll have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow, then you cannot choose to have, say, a slice of pizza for lunch tomorrow.
::: This argument seems to show that omniscience (or, at least, knowledge of the future choices of agents) is incompatible with genuine libertarian free will. The most effective response is probably the Leibnizian theodicy, which you can find in sections 13 and 30 of his ''Discourse on Metaphysics'', because that defense also works (as you might guess) against the problem of evil.
::: If I don't hear from you in the next couple of days, I'll assume you've moved on to other discussions and go back to work here. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 21:32, 6 July 2008 (EDT)