RE: Actual infinities.
October 17, 2017 at 4:48 am
(This post was last modified: October 17, 2017 at 4:51 am by Ignorant.)
(October 16, 2017 at 2:53 pm)Jehanne Wrote: They are neutral; agreed. [1] But, as Professor Sean Carroll said repeatedly in his debate with WLC, theism is 1) not well defined, 2) given to multiple definitions, and 3) leads to no strong predictions. Theism is compatible with everything! [2] As with the idea that planets move because there are angles pushing them in a way that conforms to mindless natural forces, so, too, Occam's Razor demands that we reject theism, deism, pantheism, etc., and only accept naturalism, as there is simply no need to postulate anything beyond the natural order. [3]
1) Great!
2) Fair enough.
3) Yes that is true. Angels/"supernatural forces" are unnecessary for explanations about planetary motion or other natural phenomenon. If the god-of-the-gaps theism is the only one you know, then you rightly reject it, but I would hope you would remain open to more sophisticated accounts of theism.
Does metaphysical naturalism suppose/know of some sort of necessary "thing", common to all things, without which nothing-at-all could exist? If it is supposed, why is it supposed? If it is known, what is it?
