RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 26, 2018 at 11:46 am
(This post was last modified: March 26, 2018 at 11:52 am by polymath257.)
(March 26, 2018 at 10:28 am)SteveII Wrote:(March 23, 2018 at 3:59 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't agree with your supposition here, but it doesn't matter anyway. Having had some time to think about Craig/Ghazali's argument, it's plain that it's a load of crap. By 'eternal' here, Craig/Ghazali are implying that God has existed for an endless or infinite amount of time.
Why do you insert 'time' here? God can exists in a timeless/unchanging state. Eternal does not imply time, it is simply the absence of time. There is nothing incoherent about this. Now when God created something, he changed from a timeless/changeless state and is now exists in time because of the nature of having interaction with his creation.
Quote:Thus the relevance of pointing out that the universe has existed a finite time. But that's not what it means to be timeless. This argument is nothing more than a bunch of confusion caused by an incoherent concept of God existing timelessly. If God exists timelessly, then there is no paradox between the universe being finite and the conditions for the creation of the universe existing because these things do not occur in time. God is and God creates. Those two events occur together in timeless existence, so Craig/Ghazali's argument about water freezing simply doesn't apply.
There is a prior-than relationship between the two states. God existed prior to creation with the potential for creation. "God creates" is not a timeless event. It is the demarcation between God existing timelessly and temporally. A cause simultaneous with its effect.
Quote:What I find remarkable is that a philosopher who specializes in the theory of time could make such a boneheaded argument. Either Craig is demonstrating sheer incompetence or he is simply dishonestly making an argument of convenience here. Regardless, Craig/Ghazali's argument doesn't hold water, and so it can't be used as justification for the belief that the conclusion of the KCA is necessarily a 'personal' god.
Let me know if my answer above does not address your problem with the argument. If you are interested, here is an address WLC gave on the topic. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings...eternity1/
(March 23, 2018 at 5:27 pm)polymath257 Wrote: However, suppose we have the following:
1. I don't recall a time when Mary went to the market that wasn't a Wednesday. (95%)
2. I don't recall a Wednesday when the street cleaners didn't run (80%).
3. Mary went to the market. (100%).
This can now be used to conclude that the street cleaners are running with (.95*.8=) 76% confidence.
In your example, going from
1. Mary generally goes to the market on Wednesday (95%)
2. Mary went to the market.
you need the probability of the converse 1' above, which cannot be derived from the probability of 1 without additional information (how often Mary goes on other days, for example).
Fine, reword the first premise to whatever you want. My point is so obviously clear and it is equally so obvious clear you did not address it. We are NOT looking to make sure all the premises are true and what the probability that all the premises being true is. Read that again to make sure you understand it. We are looking for what the probability of the conclusion is. Number 7 is NOT 61%. If I added five more 80% likely reasons why it might be Wednesday, it will NOT DROP. It goes up!!!!
This is not a difficult concept and it truly amazes me that several of you think you have a point. You don't.
If you want to understand the underlying mathematical reasons, you want to read up Bayes Theorem and especially Bayesian Inference.
Yes, and the probability of the conclusion is the product of the (relative) probabilities for the premises involved in the conclusion.
In your addition of other premises, you are providing alternative ways to get to the conclusion, not additional premises for a deduction of that conclusion.
So, for example, suppose we have
A and B implies Z
and also
C and D implies Z
and also
E and F implies Z.
We first multiply the probabilities of A and B to get the probability of going *that* route to Z. Then we multiply the probabilities of C and D for *that* route to Z. Finally, we multiply the probabilities of E and F for the probability that *that* route to Z works.
Then, to find the *overall* probability of Z, we multiply the probabilities that *all* routes fail and subtract that from 1.
Of course, at each stage we should use relative probabilities.
Quote:
(March 25, 2018 at 9:21 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Thanks, I'll look it over. My experience has been that the nondeterminism of QM is sometimes confounded for being non-caused.
The following I think reflects my view from what I have seen.
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/...principle/
Very succinctly put.
A lot of internet atheist go wrong here and I think it stems from a complete lack of philosophical training. They cannot differentiate between scientific descriptions and concepts that are clearly not science. It is logical positivism/scientism but, ironically, they cannot identify their mistake because they have no philosophical training. Since they cannot identify that component in their worldview, they don't know that it has been dismissed by nearly everyone for more that 50 years. So, it lives on.
This QM and now radioactive decay not having a cause is just such nonsense.
OK, what 'actualizes the potential' for a nuclear decay?
