nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 60:
Line 60: + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Arguments for the existence of God (view source)
Revision as of 07:12, July 7, 2008
, 07:12, July 7, 2008→Aristotle: Fallacious argument and other responses.
::: 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.
::: 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)
::: 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)
:::: "''...science says that entropy increases over time in a closed system''": Which the universe is.
:::: "''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''": First, an infinite chain of events sounds pretty much like a perpetual motion machine, which is one of the very things that the laws of thermodynamics ''does'' rule out. Second, we are not talking about almost-nothing events, but enormous, universe-creating events.
:::: "''...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.''": Regardless of what a particular formulation of an argument says, events need causes also.
:::: There is a fallacy in your argument about knowledge of the future. What your argument amounts to is the following:
::::* If any subject S '''knows''' some proposition ''p'', then ''p'' is true.
::::* An omniscient being knows everything, including the proposition "Philip will choose to 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 I'll choose to have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow.
::::* But if it's true that I'll choose to have a sandwich for lunch tomorrow, then I cannot choose to have, say, a slice of pizza for lunch tomorrow.
:::: So the argument is really that in choosing X I cannot choose Y (where X and Y are mutually exclusive). Which is basic logic, not an argument against omniscience.
:::: As for your edits, I wasn't objecting to them in toto, simply because I hadn't thought them through. Rather, I was responding to one point of the argument. If the Big Bang replaces God as the ''direct'' cause of the universe, but God is needed for the Big Bang, it's disingenuous to say that "if the Universe was caused to exist by the Big Bang, there is no need to suppose a Divine cause". And that was my point: proposing the Big Bang is insufficient reason to say that a Divine cause is not required. It just removes the Divine cause one step.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
Going back to the big bang, I asked a pyschicist and he said the universe has an age, the only people who try to claim the universe has existed forever are some atheists, but that most atheists agree with the big bang. --<span style="margin-top: -3px;"> [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 23:56, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Going back to the big bang, I asked a pyschicist and he said the universe has an age, the only people who try to claim the universe has existed forever are some atheists, but that most atheists agree with the big bang. --<span style="margin-top: -3px;"> [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 23:56, 6 July 2008 (EDT)