Originally posted by FreakyKBHAbnormal yes but "cruel"? If an animal has no sense that it is inflicting pain because it lacks empathy, I don't see how it's actions can be cruel - at least in the same sense we refer to a human's actions as cruel (i.e. intending to create unnecessary suffering).
Actually, if a lion grabbed a child and ate him, anyone who knows anything about lions would assume that the lion was acting in accord with its own instincts (especially if the child were portly).
However, if a lion grabbed a child and slowly tortured him to an eventual death--- making sport of the kill in an obvious display of delight--- we would consider that abnormal behavior. Cruel behavior.
1 edit
Originally posted by Agerg
Silly boy!!! I am well aware that they are 2 different types of fact....to counter your: "truth of facts (whatever that means)" I chose those 2 facts very carefully to illustrate the difference and justify what you questioned...
By definition, facts are true. Saying "truth of facts" is a tautology.
some do not see truth in the earth not being 6000 years old (a fact based upon physical evidence...just like the fact that if you throw a brick upwards, it will fall back down again...both facts some might argue have not been conclusively *proven*)...
While both may indeed be facts, they cannot be shown to be a priori so. As I said in my previous post, such scientific "facts" are correctly termed theories, even if they are well-established ones.
we didn't set up this fairy tale entity that can defy the laws of physics at will...the justification for which not being backed up by any physical or spiritual evidence such that we can apreciate it's truth...we do not see anyone presenting us with the means to test your stories of never never land...and it certainly hasn't been properly thought through logically because religion contains a myriad of different contradictions. If it is a strawman, then it is you and other theists that made it for us.
Nice try. You may believe that the only entities that exist are subject to the laws of the physical sciences. That's your faith. I see no reason to impose arbitrary restrictions on the kinds of beings that may or may not exist. If anyone is subjecting themselves to a "myriad of different contradictions", it's you here.
Being silly again...I never specified that *you* have used circular reasoning in *this* thread...I said that in general philosophical argumentation tends to rely upon circular reasoning...there is a slight difference that you didn't notice (why does that not surprise me!)
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. If you weren't responding to what I actually wrote, then you're just throwing out phrases in the hope that something will stick, right?
you want me to back up the assertion that you amongst others mis-represent evidence? ok, how about ID...using the watch analogy they claim the universe is so complicated and intricate ...
ROFL! Do you want to claim again that you're not making a specific assertion about what *I* wrote before I point out the obvious? I never mentioned ID or Paley's Watchmaker argument in this thread or any other discussion we've had.
Still throwing out phrases in the hope that something will stick. Now, why does that not surprise me?
Also...to help define circular reasoning for you (because it seems you don't really understand the notion sufficiently) it means asserting [b]p without proving it, using this to derive q, and then using q to prove p...[/b]
LOL! You know, you really should find out more about who your opponents are before you start "teaching". You never know -- might help you avoid looking rather silly in the future.
There is a god (asserting p)...if there is a god only he would have created the universe like this (deriving q) you cannot create a universe without a God (using q)...therefore God must exist (proving p) Hey! thats a bit like what you keep saying!!! (most use the Bible too! or the Qu-ran etc...)
Still throwing out phrases...
there are other theories such as the big bang and big collapse, there may be other theories too but the difference is that theists are presumptious enough to claim that their ideas are fact without any justification...
Just because you choose to ignore justification put before you doesn't mean none is provided. And so far you've yet to begin addressing the actual arguments put before you on this thread, let alone refuting them.
and what is this evidence eh?...your reasoning? ...Feel free to say that God is fundamentally ontologically different to whatever but without anything to back it up all you have is a fairy tale.
That God is fundamentally ontologically different is the conclusion of the argument. My stating it up front does not make it a fairy tale or circular reasoning.
You are merely preaching to the nursery with these sort of responses LH...
Here, I agree with you. I too feel like I'm preaching to a toddler at times.
5 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerwhy must you always use the evasive tactic of turning debates into a p;ssing contest LH?..
Originally posted by Agerg
Silly boy!!! I am well aware that they are 2 different types of fact....to counter your: "truth of facts (whatever that means)" I chose those 2 facts very carefully to illustrate the difference and justify what you questioned...
By definition, facts are true. Saying "truth of facts" is a tautology.
I agree with you. I too feel like I'm preaching to a toddler at times.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. If you weren't responding to what I actually wrote, then you're just throwing out phrases in the hope that something will stick, right?
Your original question *DID NOT REFER TO YOURSELF* it asked in general: why cannot philosophical argumentation be used...my response answered this but for lack of a better counter you felt compelled to suggest that I directly stated you use circular reasoning and misrepresentaion of evidence (In general you do actually)..I responded to this by stating that it didn't...again you hit back with a worthless and irrelevant shot.
ROFL! Do you want to claim again that you're not making a specific assertion about what *I* wrote before I point out the obvious? I never mentioned ID or Paley's Watchmaker argument in this thread or any other discussion we've had.
hmm firstly I never specified that in this thread you mis-represent evidence or use circular reasoning (though you do elsewhere); also, given that I actually said you and others...and further, in my opening said "using the watch analogy they claim..." one could have perhaps realised I wasn't directly referring only to you (perhaps I made a mistake and you are not a proponent of ID...I have a vague recollection of some discussion where you did actually champion this idea, perhaps I'm wrong)
LOL! You know, you really should find out more about who your opponents are before you start "teaching". You never know -- might help you avoid looking rather silly in the future.
Still throwing out phrases...
Still throwing out BS...
Just because you choose to ignore justification put before you doesn't mean none is provided. And so far you've yet to begin addressing the actual arguments put before you on this thread, let alone refuting them.
Actually present a *sound* argument, show us your justification...don't just assert BS
That God is fundamentally ontologically different is the conclusion of the argument. My stating it up front does not make it a fairy tale or circular reasoning.
So what?...a magic pot is fundamentally ontologically different to your God...is a magic pot now more credible for switching the order of words around???...WHY should your God concept be given more weight of credibility than fairies?
Originally posted by dottewellSorry about the delayed response.
We've discussed this before. Hume said no so thing, and proposed a sceptical solution to his sceptical "problem".
There are plently of "theories" of causation - probabilities-based accounts, counterfactual accounts, etc.
What exactly is your understanding of Aristotle's treatment of causation? "Agent causation" is usually distinguished from "event ca ...[text shortened]... construct a Humean sceptical argument regarding agent-caused events/facts, too?
Hume was certainly aware of the problem of induction (though he didn't term it so) and what it meant for laws of nature (i.e. science). His sceptical "solution" doesn't really solve the core problem -- why is induction a reasonable activity? Even if his claim that induction is an instinctive action is correct (many forms of induction -- scientific reasoning, for instance, are quite deliberate in contrast), it's quite evident that human beings, as rational beings, can choose to disregard it. So why not disregard induction as Hume disregards intrinsic causal accounts? If one argues that human living would be nearly impossible if one did not depend on induction then that would be begging the question -- that argument itself depends on induction.
You're right in that agent causation is contrasted with event causation. Any account depending on events as the subjects of causation has to fall back on a regularity account. With agent causation, however, one has to ask what it is that allows an agent to cause effect C and not C'.
Counterfactual accounts of causation have to ultimately fall back on either events or agents as the subjects of causality. Probability accounts of causation seem to me to be a cop-out. Probability is just another way of quantifying something that's unknown. If I toss a coin, then the probability of it landing heads is said to be 0.5. If I knew the exact physical parameters of the toss (e.g. orientation of coin, force of toss, point where the coin is struck etc.), however, there would be no need for probability.
Granted, most people will think of causality in terms of events but, if you press them on it, would realise that they are implicitly thinking in terms of agents. With the rain-river analogy, for instance, there is no logical connection between the events of water falling from the sky and a river swelling up. If they had to explain why one event is said to "cause" the other, they would have to reference something like a certain volume of water -- in which case they have shifted to agent causation (here the agent is the water that fell). Clearly if, instead of rain, there were a huge pump obtaining the same volume of water from the ocean and dumping it in the river, we would see the same effect -- most people would acknowledge this. The underlying cause in both scenarios is the same -- the reason people can recognise this is because they are thinking in terms of agents and not events.
And another thing to ponder - couldn't one construct a Humean sceptical argument regarding agent-caused events/facts, too?
No. Unlike events as causes, there is a logical connection involved when an agent is a cause. In the example above, it is the extra volume of water added to the river that causes the river to swell (i.e. its volume to increase) -- there's a direct logical connection there.
Originally posted by AgergOriginally posted by Agerg
why must you always use the evasive tactic of turning debates into a p;ssing contest LH?..
[b]Thank you for pointing out the obvious. If you weren't responding to what I actually wrote, then you're just throwing out phrases in the hope that something will stick, right?
Your original question *DID NOT REFER TO YOURSELF* it asked in gener ...[text shortened]... ?...WHY should your God concept be given more weight of credibility than fairies?[/b]
why must you always use the evasive tactic of turning debates into a p;ssing contest LH?..
If my opponent actually debated instead of running around throwing hit-and-miss arguments, there wouldn't be a p;ssing contest.
Your original question [b]*DID NOT REFER TO YOURSELF* it asked in general: why cannot philosophical argumentation be used...my response answered this ...[/b]
It did not. You said something about theists generally using flawed philosophical arguments etc. etc. but did not answer the question of whether a valid philosophical argument is sufficient.
also, given that I actually said you [b]and others...[/b]
"[I] and others" includes me.
Actually present a *sound* argument, show us your justification...don't just assert BS
Actually answer the questions put to you instead of throwing vague generalities. Don't tell me about how theists generally argue or what fallacies they usually display -- respond to what *I* write *here*. Then maybe you'll start seeing whether a sound argument has already been put before you or not (before you started running around the park like an excited ostrich).
So what?...a magic pot is fundamentally ontologically different to your God...is a magic pot now more credible for switching the order of words around???...WHY should your God concept be given more weight of credibility than fairies?
You're chasing a strawman. I never said that God is more credible simply because He is ontologically different. I said that the kind of evidence used to demonstrate the existence of a being that is ontologically different would also be different. You're not responding to what I actually write (I've reiterated this point several times).
Originally posted by lucifershammerThanks.
Sorry about the delayed response.
Hume was certainly aware of the problem of induction (though he didn't term it so) and what it meant for laws of nature (i.e. science). His sceptical "solution" doesn't really solve the core problem -- why is induction a reasonable activity? Even if his claim that induction is an instinctive action is correct (many ...[text shortened]... to swell (i.e. its volume to increase) -- there's a direct logical connection there.
Regarding Hume you said:
"At least Hume was honest enough to admit that his account of causation meant the death of scientific investigation."
Whether or not you think his sceptical solution is satisfying, this statement about Hume is plainly false.
Regarding "agent causation", I have to say you seem to be using this expression in a non-standard way.
To help, can you find me an example of a philosopher (or someone else) using the expression in the sense you mean?
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt did not. You said something about theists generally using flawed philosophical arguments etc. etc. but did not answer the question of whether a valid philosophical argument is sufficient.
Originally posted by Agerg
why must you always use the evasive tactic of turning debates into a p;ssing contest LH?..
If my opponent actually debated instead of running around throwing hit-and-miss arguments, there wouldn't be a p;ssing contest.
Your original question [b]*DID NOT REFER TO YOURSELF* it asked in general: wh 're not responding to what I actually write (I've reiterated this point several times).[/b]
A valid philosophical agument would suggest that the concept meritted further investigation, a philosophical argument on the otherhand includes arguments such as: *The evidence for God's existence is greater than the evidence for Agerg's. reason?...I don't really hold with the current account of causation so therefore I choose the Aristotlean account...the truth of this implies that God is the agent of first cause...Therefore I conclude that God is more real than Agerg*...a classic example of circular reasoning. In my "Soul???" thread you could have stated at the start that you hold that soul is just another word for physical body, you didn't because you do not hold to this view, but after taking me all round the houses to a point where this could be the only safe conclusion to ensure my other questions were side-stepped, you just stated: "What you've said is more or less what I hold" when in fact I gave multiple options to choose from that were mutually exclusive...at this point I held little hope of getting a coherent answer.
Philosophical arguments without anything concrete to back them up waged by people such as yourself are nowhere near as acceptable as tangible evidence.
Actually answer the questions put to you instead of throwing vague generalities. Don't tell me about how theists generally argue or what fallacies they usually display -- respond to what *I* write *here*. Then maybe you'll start seeing whether a sound argument has already been put before you or not (before you started running around the park like an excited ostrich).
I did answer the question (I also answered the ones that arose through your desire to be contentious and evasive, and had little to do with the original post)...I told you why for me (and probably many other atheists) a philosophical argument is not sufficient, you didn't agree with me and so sent me round the houses trying to raise a defence for implying that *you* use circular reasoning and mis-representation of evidence (you have so far used the former already in this thread) when that wasn't even my suggestion.
You're chasing a strawman. I never said that God is more credible simply because He is ontologically different. I said that the kind of evidence used to demonstrate the existence of a being that is ontologically different would also be different. You're not responding to what I actually write (I've reiterated this point several times).
There are 3 things I can extract from your counter to that post
1) The existence of God is more credible than mine...in addition to a similar argument to that above you suggest that by philosophical reasoning you can argue that everything you perceive exists *only* within your own head... I fail to see the distinction between imaginary agerg in LH's head and notion of God in LH's head...it doesn't even seem relevant to my statement about evidence
2)The evidence to support the existence of God would be different to the evidence that supports the existence of magic pots...what and where is this evidence?
3) God is fundamentally ontologically different to magic pots etc...again, what exactly is the importance of this?
All I'm getting LH is smoke and mirrors, all I ever get is smoke and mirrors 😞
Originally posted by dottewellWhether or not you think his sceptical solution is satisfying, this statement about Hume is plainly false.
Thanks.
Regarding Hume you said:
"At least Hume was honest enough to admit that his account of causation meant the death of scientific investigation."
Whether or not you think his sceptical solution is satisfying, this statement about Hume is plainly false.
Regarding "agent causation", I have to say you seem to be using this expression in a non ...[text shortened]... me an example of a philosopher (or someone else) using the expression in the sense you mean?
It's not "plainly" false. Here's what he says in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:
"For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion, that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance. Let the course of things be allowed hitherto ever so regular; that alone, without some new argument or inference, proves not, that, for the future, it will continue so. In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience [LH: Who do you think he is addressing here?]. Their secret nature, and consequently, all their effects and influence, may change, without any change in their sensible qualities."[1]
Hume's sceptical solution was a precursor to Kant's schemata -- there is a reality out there which may or may not have regular and uniform natural laws, but our nature (or instinct or whatever) constrains us to think there are. And, if we cannot know reality with scientific investigation, what's the point?
Regarding "agent causation", I have to say you seem to be using this expression in a non-standard way.
To help, can you find me an example of a philosopher (or someone else) using the expression in the sense you mean?
I don't see how I'm using it in a "non-standard" way. My preferred interpretation is the Thomistic one (and you can look up virtually any Thomist - Maritain, Lonergan, Kreeft off the top of my head), but even non-Thomists like Chisolm and Swinburne appear to use it in similar fashion [2].
[1] http://www.etext.leeds.ac.uk/hume/ehu/ehupbsb.htm#index-div3-N785031167
[2] http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~dvw/papers/2002_agentc.html
Originally posted by dottewellEfficient Causation was one of four forms of causation in Aristotle (the other three being formal, material and final). In this particular case, yes, we are talking about efficient cause.
Are we talking about what used to be called "efficient causation"? Is this a Reid-style "Physical causation is reducible to efficient causation"-type thing?
Or just that agent causation (i.e. our own) provides us with a paradigm for the causal relationship?
I don't know about "physical causation is reducible to efficient cause" -- the other three are equally applicable in physical causation.
I think I understand better your question about whether I was using "agent causation" in a non-standard way since the term is commonly used in free will discussions. No, I'm not using free will type causation as the paradigm. If the effect is a nail being driven into a wall, then I would identify the immediate cause as the hammer.