(December 27, 2021 at 4:36 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(December 27, 2021 at 4:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Again, until he can show that physical reality itself can’t exist necessarily, this argument is begging the question.

It isn't begging the question if there are elaborate arguments for it.

I'm also working on other things, so explicating the whole book isn't possible for me right now.

Does Hart ever make such arguments? if so, can you give a page number?

The 'elaborate arguments' I have read in Hart's book seem to be along the lines of 'of course physical reality can't explain its own existence' and 'we need an explanation of existence itself'.

And, of course, when it is claimed that a 'necessarily existing' things exists, it is not shown to be unique and it isn't explained *how* it is an explanation of existence.

There are a LOT of unsupported claims in this book, a lot of ridicule of those who disagree with and HUGE leaps of logic (of a sort traditional in Platonic an Aristotelian philosophy). This is mixed with misunderstandings of the physicalist position. For example, om page 154 we have

"Complex rational organization, so
we are told, is not a property naturally residing in material reality,
but is only a state imposed upon material reality whenever matter
is assumed into composite structures whose essentially disparate
parts, as a result of design or chance, operate together in some
kind of functional order. Nothing within the material constitu-
ents of those structures has the least innate tendency toward such
order, any more than the material elements from which a watch
is composed have any innate tendency toward horology."

This is flat-out wrong in what it claims to be the materialist position. Natural forces have directionality and vary in strength. That alone accounts for much production of order (for example, of why planets are spherical). Simple aspects like diffusion account for varying reactions at different distances from a source (leading to seemingly directed behavior even in bacteria--where we even understand the chemistry of why the behavior occurs). Information processing is one aspect that is a direct result of physical processes and is the foundation of consciousness (which Hart is attempting to discuss at that point).

Anyway, Hart seems to be little better than William Craig in his arguments and the number of wide gaps in his understanding.

(December 27, 2021 at 4:37 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(December 27, 2021 at 1:15 pm)Ahriman Wrote: You can be irrational but still be right, correct?

Sure. But it wouldn’t be because you soundly reasoned to the correct conclusion.

Intuition is a valid form of information processing.

(December 27, 2021 at 4:36 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(December 27, 2021 at 4:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Again, until he can show that physical reality itself can’t exist necessarily, this argument is begging the question.

It isn't begging the question if there are elaborate arguments for it.

I'm also working on other things, so explicating the whole book isn't possible for me right now.

The elaborateness of an argument is not related to the truth of any of its premises, or its conclusion. Arguments can be elaborately fallacious. We’d have to examine these arguments in detail. Does Hart lay any out in his book? I would hope so, considering his entire argument depends upon the assumption in question being true.

(December 27, 2021 at 5:25 pm)Ahriman Wrote:

(December 27, 2021 at 4:37 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Sure. But it wouldn’t be because you soundly reasoned to the correct conclusion.

Intuition is a valid form of information processing.

Human intuition has lead us to all sorts of wrong conclusions about ourselves and the world we live in.

(December 27, 2021 at 5:25 pm)Ahriman Wrote:

(December 27, 2021 at 4:37 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Sure. But it wouldn’t be because you soundly reasoned to the correct conclusion.

Intuition is a valid form of information processing.

Actually, intuition is the antithesis of validity, since intuition - by definition - is not information processing.

Boru

I mean......putting all important decision making in the hands of a god, or some gods, might be irrational, but if they do everything right, who really cares if it's rational or not.

Quote:Intuition is a valid form of information processing.

Intuition would have told you that matter is solid.

(December 27, 2021 at 6:49 pm)Ahriman Wrote: I mean......putting all important decision making in the hands of a god, or some gods, might be irrational, but if they do everything right, who really cares if it's rational or not.

That’s a mighty big ‘if’.

Boru

Quote:I mean......putting all important decision making in the hands of a god, or some gods, might be irrational, but if they do everything right, who really cares if it's rational or not.

If you delusionally interpret them being right 

It's not much of a delusion if everything goes right in your life and you have a good life