Originally posted by dottewellWhat motivates scientific endeavour is certainly not neutral between Skeptical (Humean) and Realist stances. Indeed, practical science (as the ball vs. leaf example I provided earlier demonstrates) is not neutral between them.
...And believing that by doing science I am discovering laws doesn't compel me to search for new laws, either.
So what? The question of what motivates scientific endeavour is a quite separate one, which in many regards is neutral between a Humean and anti-Humean view of induction.
Bluntly: if I want to cure cancer, I'll probably keep going wit ...[text shortened]... the science thing, whether I'm Humean or not. Where does Hume say different, as you claimed?
Where does Hume say different, as you claimed?
Fine. Hume does not actually say, "My theory means the death of scientific investigation". Happy? We'll just conveniently ignore the bit where he addresses scientists and the presuppositions of the scientists of his day (especially considering it was the immediate post-Newton era).
Originally posted by dottewellI haven't read enough of or about Reid to conclude whether he extends agent causation to all effects.
Okay. So you're Thomas Reid, or Aquinas, or whatever. Do you think if we accept Anscombe's criticism of Hume we have to revert to some sort of Reidian view of efficient/agent causation?
Explain the following in terms of agent causation:
Darvlay's face annoys me.
What does it mean here to say Darvlay's face is an "agent"?
Anscombe's criticism(s) of Hume (particularly on the epistemological side) are not the only ones there are. Besides the problems of induction, there are also criticisms in terms of differentiating causation from accidental generalisation, the question of counterfactuals and issues with unique incidents.
What does it mean here to say Darvlay's face is an "agent"?
First, Darvlay's face would not be the proximate or immediate cause. That would be the light reflected off his face.
What it means to say that light of a particular set of wavelengths and representing a particular design annoys you is that it brings about a change in you (i.e. you get annoyed) that you might not otherwise have undergone.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, there are many criticism of Hume; but I don't think those you mention imply your Reidian agent/efficient-cause view.
I haven't read enough of or about Reid to conclude whether he extends agent causation to all effects.
Anscombe's criticism(s) of Hume (particularly on the epistemological side) are not the only ones there are. Besides the problems of induction, there are also criticisms in terms of differentiating causation from accidental generalisation, the quest ...[text shortened]... about a change in you (i.e. you get annoyed) that you might not otherwise have undergone.
My point is simply that to suggest, as you did, there are two "theories" of causation - the Reidian one and a Humean one - gives a false picture.
Regarding Darvlay's face and agent-causation (boy, if I had a penny for every time I'd said that... ), isn't the natural explanation that an event or perhaps a fact causes the reaction (another event or fact)? The concept of agency doesn't seem to apply.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI have a friend who works in medical research because she wants to cure disease.
What motivates scientific endeavour is certainly not neutral between Skeptical (Humean) and Realist stances. Indeed, practical science (as the ball vs. leaf example I provided earlier demonstrates) is not neutral between them.
[b]Where does Hume say different, as you claimed?
Fine. Hume does not actually say, "My theory means the death of sc ...[text shortened]... s of the scientists of his day (especially considering it was the immediate post-Newton era).[/b]
Why would being a Humean cause her to put down her microscope?
Regarding what Hume thought, he was simply saying that scientists had no rational basis to assume regularity. I've granted that. But assume regularity we do, and must.
Originally posted by dottewellWhy MUST we?
I have a friend who works in medical research because she wants to cure disease.
Why would being a Humean cause her to put down her microscope?
Regarding what Hume thought, he was simply saying that scientists had no rational basis to assume regularity. I've granted that. But assume regularity we do, and must.
14 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammer[/i]1. Any rational metaphysical account of the universe (including solipsism or idealism) involves causation.
a philosophical argument on the otherhand includes arguments such as: [i]*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 c he site (even when they clearly disagree with me). Now, I wonder why that is?
2. Causation can be of two kinds - event or agent.
3. Event causation requires a Humean regularity theory.
4. Regularity accounts of causation are self-refuting (e.g. they argue that induction is impossible but rely on induction themselves).
(3,4) 5. Therefore event causation is not a valid account of causation.
(2,5) 6. Therefore agent causation is a valid account of causation.
7. If causes are agents, then you cannot have an infinite cause-effect chain.
(7) 8. Therefore there is a First Cause.
9. The First Cause is itself uncaused and metaphysically necessary.
10.The First Cause can be termed God.
(1,10) 11. Therefore, God exists in any rational metaphysical account of the universe.
12. Solipsism/Idealism is a rational metaphysical account of the universe. Is there only this?...what about materialism? (amongst others perhaps)...a belief that the only things that exist are those that exist within ones mind is not a rational metaphysical account to me.
(11,13) 14. Therefore it is more rational to believe in the existence of God than in that of Agerg
Care to point out the circularity?
If we look at the one case where you see the problem with event causation, ie: the first cause, then though this may be a problem for you...the alternative is also a problem because it is only by your definition (that I and others reject)...that God is uncaused...I have seen no conclusive evidence or argument that this must be true.
It is illogical to me to expect that whilst there must have been a first cause that had to be created by an agent, that the agent itself had never been created...this is a contradiction for me and other atheists resolved not by your definition of God. --- This is therefore an un-verified assertion of truth.
From this you then derive God's part in any rational metaphysical account of the universe...also by considering one subset of the set of epistemological positions you used this to conclude that God is more real than Agerg....this conclusion would also justify any claims that God exists because I also exist too.
I've provided the complete argument in simple terms above. We can certainly debate the validity of those arguments, but since you repeatedly claim I use circular reasoning I want you to demonstrate that the argument (1-14) above uses circular reasoning
If not, I expect you to withdraw that statement.
see above...statement not withdrawn
(1) is what I've argued above. Even if Agerg is an idea in my head, God must exist and cannot be an idea in my head. That's why it's more credible to believe in God than in Agerg. I do not hold that God must exist
For (2), see the argument. The evidence is philosophical (i.e. the irrefutable existence of causation itself) -- not specific fossils or galactic events or scientific observations (all of which presume causation, btw). This evidence is unsatisfactory...Inspite of your claims that it is watertight I see holes.
(3) is important because it means that one does not look for specific scientific evidence for God. That would be akin to trying to read a printed word by looking only at individual pixels. One should then not look for specific scientific evidence for magic pots.
Your position that the evidence supporting the existence of god is NOT equal to that which supports the existence of the FSM, UPU, fairies etc...has not been qualified yet.
That's because the soul is not just another word for physical body. In simple terms:
Soul : Human Being :: Design : Building
Building : destruction of : rebuild of from *identical* materials and plans : building2
when we die, if resurrected physically or spiritually the soul is describing a different entity...not me
5 edits
Additionally (because I suspect you are are going to say that what I demonstrated is not wholly an example of circular reasoning):
Stating that there even has to be a first cause *1* and that it had to be an agent type of causation forces that you could draw no other reasonable conclusion other than this agent had to be a God like entity *2*...Thing is, with this un-verified statement you end up with P < == > Q (where P = truth of God, and Q = truth of agent causation)...it is circular by default, and from this you (and/or others) would then infer that the Bible is indeed the word of God, that he defies our laws of physics and so on not just in this, but other threads...For this amongst other reasons philosophical argumentation alone falls way short of acceptable evidence.
1) Perhaps the universe has always existed in a state of big bang -big collapse - big bang and so on... I prefer this over eternal supernatural entity. I don't accept it as a fact however, I simply don't know!
2) Though even this doesn't rule out FSM's etc...
Originally posted by ivanhoeaparrently Darwin never read the bible and if he did he only skimmed threw because in the bible Hebrews 11:1 it clearly states that "faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for" the problem i see with most so called christians is they never prove the bible real to themselves (which it can be proved). they have blind faith which under pressure they always ends up undermining God's standards
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/mcgrath/lecture.html#_edn2
by Alister McGrath
Let's begin by looking at that definition of faith, and ask where it comes from. Faith `means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence.' But why should anyone accept this ludicrous definition? What is the evidence that this is how rel ...[text shortened]... usion over which is the conclusion and which the presupposition of an argument.
Originally posted by domlo45Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.
aparrently Darwin never read the bible and if he did he only skimmed threw because in the bible Hebrews 11:1 it clearly states that "faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for" the problem i see with most so called christians is they never prove the bible real to themselves (which it can be proved). they have blind faith which under pressure they always ends up undermining God's standards
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's a good definition IMO
Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.
Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Faith IMHO is a gift.
If the question is .. "Does God exist?", it's one we confront early in life. Shortly after finding out Santa is a sham, they throw God into the mix.
I dismissed it right away .. fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
The question always comes back for me .. not Santa .. God.
To dismiss the possibilty that God may exist would require one to know "everything."
To KNOW that God exists is not possible either IMO .. and that brings us to faith.
I envy those with faith, i'm stuck in the material world with incomplete information myself .. if I had proof, I wouldn't need faith. If I had faith, proof wouldn't matter.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseJammer:
ROTFL
The strawman-king strikes again!
To dismiss the possibilty that God may exist would require one to know "everything."
To KNOW that God exists is not possible either IMO .. and that brings us to faith.
twhitehead:
Yet you gladly dismiss the possibility that Santa exists? How so?
Halitose:
The strawman-king strikes again!
How is that a strawman? If there is any stawman here, it is in Jammer's statement, not twhiteheads response. And I don't see anything wrong with Jammer's statement either.
Originally posted by HalitoseIt is no strawman. I do not see why one needs infinite knowledge "to dismiss the possibility that God may exist" any more than it is required to dismiss the possibility that Santa exists yet the poster clearly thinks there is a difference. I am merely inquiring what the difference is.
ROTFL
The strawman-king strikes again!
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is no strawman.
It is no strawman. I do not see why one needs infinite knowledge "to dismiss the possibility that God may exist" any more than it is required to dismiss the possibility that Santa exists yet the poster clearly thinks there is a difference. I am merely inquiring what the difference is.
That is why you've risen to "king" status in my view: you feverishly construct strawmen -- and you don't even realise it. The upside to this is that you are not being intellectually dishonest: there is still hope that you'd exhibit more stringent and thorough methodology to your thinking.
So why exactly is this a strawman? Let’s go through this nice and slow:
I'll start off with an example: let's say I assert that there are little green men somewhere in the universe. For you to disprove this, you will need to have examined every nook and cranny; every planet and galaxy; every moon and comet. Not only that, but you'd have to examine them all at the same time, since the little green men could have moved from one location to the other if you examine them sequentially. So… for you to conclusively disprove the unqualified proposition of little green men existing somewhere in the universe, you will need to be omniscient -- which is no small feat. I believe Jammer's words were: "[one would need] to know 'everything'".
Let's now take the assertion that a God exists. Unfortunately the criteria for the disproof of such an assertion are contingent on how this said God is qualified. If God is qualified only in broad terms, then it would probably be easier to disprove the little green men than a "divine being existing outside of space and time".
Let's move to the last one, namely ol' Santa. The concept of Santa is well qualified, e.g. lives on the Equator, pulls a sled full of donkeys, tortures elves and steals presents on Christmas (I can't quite remember it all and might have confused some of the details). A thorough study of all satellite imagery of the equator and all cases of stolen presents has resulted in the SETI (Santa – Enterprising Tracking Initiative) program claiming in a released statement that the odds of his existence are a virtual nil. Taking it all into consideration, (and silliness aside) it would be comparatively quite easy to prove or disprove the existence of Santa.
Herein lies your strawman:
The criteria and rigor required to disprove Santa is relatively a walk in the park compared to the insurmountable task of "dismissing the possibility of a God existing". You assume at your peril that God and Santa are essentially the same.
Edit: To further demonstrate how horrendous your strawman really is, I would just need to compare the evidence proposed for the existence of God compared to the evidence for Santa. The scales would be slightly out of kilter.