01 Apr '12 07:36>1 edit
Here is the Dallas Willard essay link again:
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42
DW opens with some discussion about some argument that he attributes to Nielsen. DW appears here to be defending against some version of theological noncognitivism. Since I am also generally not a noncognitivist regarding theological discourse, I guess I do not really disagree with DW here. However, I found this section rather unclear and also uninteresting. So, I would move that we fast-forward to what DW calls the three stages of theistic evidence.
DW's argument comprising stage 1 is some version of the cosmological argument. By my reading, his argument here can be summarized roughly as follows:
(1.1) There exists a physical reality.
(1.2) Every entity of physical reality owes its existence to something other than itself. (Here, based on DW's supporting discussion, I guess that we can interpret this as DW's claiming that every physical entity is dependent, in the sense that its being derives from the causal activity of entities other than itself.)
(1.3) For any physical entity E, the series of causes eventuating in E's being must be structured such that this series has a first term.
(1.C) Therefore, there exists at least one non-physical entity that does not derive its existence from something else.
First, do you agree with this restatement of DW's stage 1 argument?
I see no good reasons to accept 1.2; and I see no good reasons to accept 1.3. The support for these two premises that DW has to offer in this essay is either non-existent (in the case of 1.2) or bad (in the case of 1.3).
DW acts like premise 1.2 should be obvious to anyone, and he basically does not support the premise beyond his claiming that it is "something which we know to be true of the general character of things in the physical world." Well, it is not obvious to me; and it is not something I know to be true; and I see no actual reasons to accept it. Accepting 1.2 appears to commit us to denying that there could be elements of the physical world that are either (a) simply brute, in that they are not explained by anything or (b) metaphysically random. And I see no reason for doing this, and DW does not seem to actually offer reasons in this capacity.
In his defense of 1.3 DW basically claims that the causal series leading to E cannot be infinite and without a first term because in such a case "(E's) causes would never 'get to' it". There is no reason that I can see to accept this. On the contrary, if you consider E and ANY specific antecedent, there is a finite number of serial steps linking them. So, I do not understand why DW thinks there is a problem here.
Before we move to Stages 2 or 3, what is your take on Stage 1?
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42
DW opens with some discussion about some argument that he attributes to Nielsen. DW appears here to be defending against some version of theological noncognitivism. Since I am also generally not a noncognitivist regarding theological discourse, I guess I do not really disagree with DW here. However, I found this section rather unclear and also uninteresting. So, I would move that we fast-forward to what DW calls the three stages of theistic evidence.
DW's argument comprising stage 1 is some version of the cosmological argument. By my reading, his argument here can be summarized roughly as follows:
(1.1) There exists a physical reality.
(1.2) Every entity of physical reality owes its existence to something other than itself. (Here, based on DW's supporting discussion, I guess that we can interpret this as DW's claiming that every physical entity is dependent, in the sense that its being derives from the causal activity of entities other than itself.)
(1.3) For any physical entity E, the series of causes eventuating in E's being must be structured such that this series has a first term.
(1.C) Therefore, there exists at least one non-physical entity that does not derive its existence from something else.
First, do you agree with this restatement of DW's stage 1 argument?
I see no good reasons to accept 1.2; and I see no good reasons to accept 1.3. The support for these two premises that DW has to offer in this essay is either non-existent (in the case of 1.2) or bad (in the case of 1.3).
DW acts like premise 1.2 should be obvious to anyone, and he basically does not support the premise beyond his claiming that it is "something which we know to be true of the general character of things in the physical world." Well, it is not obvious to me; and it is not something I know to be true; and I see no actual reasons to accept it. Accepting 1.2 appears to commit us to denying that there could be elements of the physical world that are either (a) simply brute, in that they are not explained by anything or (b) metaphysically random. And I see no reason for doing this, and DW does not seem to actually offer reasons in this capacity.
In his defense of 1.3 DW basically claims that the causal series leading to E cannot be infinite and without a first term because in such a case "(E's) causes would never 'get to' it". There is no reason that I can see to accept this. On the contrary, if you consider E and ANY specific antecedent, there is a finite number of serial steps linking them. So, I do not understand why DW thinks there is a problem here.
Before we move to Stages 2 or 3, what is your take on Stage 1?