(October 17, 2019 at 6:33 am)Nomad Wrote: His conclusions simply do not flow from his premises, again they are assertions. For example he simply asserts determinism is true for nothing more than the simple fact we have a word for it. Truth does not work that way. Actually, IMO proving the universe is deterministic is actually harmful to the god hypothesis, not helpful.
If it’s harmful, then it should just be accepted for the sake of Argument. I’d point out that all request to demonstrate, assumes determinism a priori. Just like a request to decipher what’s true, assume objective truth a prior
Quote:3) The first cause hypothesis falls on the first hurdle in and of itself, vis what makes god the first cause? If god exists then he's part of everything, and if he's part of everything then he too must be a created thing.
I guess the question could be what makes a first cause a God? Either way I didn’t use the word God in my argument. You’ll still have first cause, that assigns meaning and values to reality in a deterministic universe, even if you don’t want to call it God.
Quote:Value is subjective, a lump of anthracite was far more valuable in 19th century England than in 5th century CE Yucutan, simply because 200 years ago people knew a lot more about coal, what they could do with it and so on than 2,500 years ago. And it has since lost some of that value, because we know a lot more of the problems with using it.
All knowledge of reality is derived from our experience of reality. Meaning and values are a part of that experience. In a deterministic reality terms like subjective and objective have no clear line. If I program a robot to value yellow balls, from the perspective of the robot is this value anymore subjective or objective, than the ball he’s programmed to see?