tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1714691499566167495..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Michael Ruse Defends the Cosmological ArgumentLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger155125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14810862666898223952013-01-04T07:39:36.554-05:002013-01-04T07:39:36.554-05:00The cosmological argument, at heart, runs 'any...The cosmological argument, at heart, runs 'any being that necessarily exists, exists'. Yes, the logic is sound, in the same way that 'the sea is wet' is sound, logically. <br /><br />The bit that's not sound is the leap Christians make, which is '... and the necessary being gets angry when people do sex up the bum'. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65048556195067047622012-12-31T06:15:05.530-05:002012-12-31T06:15:05.530-05:00Oh, he's finished all right. A Happy New Year ...Oh, he's finished all right. A Happy New Year to you and everybody here!Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5118154078032213712012-12-31T05:17:00.383-05:002012-12-31T05:17:00.383-05:00Happy New Year, Piotr!
And let me know when the gi...Happy New Year, Piotr!<br />And let me know when the giant Jesus is finished! I hope it doesn't fall on anybody!andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63304647688922421892012-12-31T04:56:39.635-05:002012-12-31T04:56:39.635-05:00No doubt they would, Andy. BTW, my country is also...No doubt they would, Andy. BTW, my country is also taking part in the International Biggest Jesus Statue Race and, at least, our rather kitschy giant Jesus was not erected by the government. It was a local parish project financed from private donations:<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327239/Jesus-statue-Poland-Worlds-largest-rival-Rio-Janeiro.html<br /><br />I don't deny the human longing for a super-fatherly power that cares for us, protects us and may solve our problems if propitiated. Still, a longing is just a longing. It does not turn into reality even if a billion people feel it.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29118848526807627242012-12-31T03:40:37.669-05:002012-12-31T03:40:37.669-05:00Of course, Piotr, I realized that, and also antici...Of course, Piotr, I realized that, and also anticipated that as a response from you, which is why I mentioned the Great Daibutsu of Kamakura, which was not a game of one upmanship between China and Japan to see who can erect the largest statue.<br /><br />So if you'd like me to concede to you all the 100 meter behemoths, I will content myself with the much smaller, but innumerable, versions, such as the dozen or so I can find within a good walk or bicycle ride from my home.<br /><br />Here is a quote from Songyal Rinpoche, a Tibetan Buddhist, in a talk he gave about how Buddhists pray and whom they pray to.<br />"Buddha is the wisdom that knows, the compassion that cares, and the power to benefit and liberate beings".<br />I am pretty sure there are numerous Christians who would describe 'Christ' in nearly the same way.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58300629896782865732012-12-31T03:23:31.859-05:002012-12-31T03:23:31.859-05:00You realise, of course, that those record-breaking...You realise, of course, that those record-breaking statues of Buddha are government-sponsored exercises in national aggrandisement. Most of them have been erected out of political, rather than religious, motives. The Spring Temple Buddha, for example, was China's response to India's Maitreya Project -- now delayed because the Kushinagar farmers are not willing to sacrifice their land:<br /><br />http://www.indianexpress.com/news/farmers-protests-may-drive-away-maitreya-buddha-project-to-bihar/664116/0<br /><br />Of course in China the government can ignore such considerations (if anyone dare protest at all).<br /><br />If you look at the list, there are several statues in the 40+ m range built in Russia, including one giant monument of Peter the Great, surely a major local deity. Perhaps if Greece had a strong and able nationalist leader interested in securing his country a position of prominence in the Guiness World Records, Socrates would have a chance. For the time being, he must content himself with the literary monument Plato built for him. Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75380357184624898752012-12-31T01:24:25.378-05:002012-12-31T01:24:25.378-05:00as one point of reference, the world's tallest...as one point of reference, the world's tallest statues, of which four are over 100 meters, are nearly all representations of Buddha.<br />And being that the building of enormous statues of Buddha, such as Japan's Kamakura Daibutsu, from the 14th century, has a very long history, it is not unreasonable to assume that a worshipful aspect of the religion, similar to that found in Christianity and Islam, goes back very very far.<br />Unless, of course, there are a lot of 100 meter statues of Socrates, Aristotle and Kant that I and nearly everyone else is unaware of. ;)<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statues_by_height<br />andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3590249230189941992012-12-30T21:23:32.039-05:002012-12-30T21:23:32.039-05:00Piotr, I would say that one of the reasons Buddhis...Piotr, I would say that one of the reasons Buddhism reached so many people was precisely because it incorporated a supernatural, devotional, intercessional aspect to it, at least in how it was/ is practiced by the majority of people who call themselves Buddhists. In China, Japan, Indonesia, etc. you find (or would have found in the past) a very 'religious' form of Buddhist belief that is quite different from the early teachings.<br />The longing for a god who is devoted to us is very strong, and I doubt whether the drier version of it would have caught on without incorporating some form of address to that human 'weakness'.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18484068936877700192012-12-30T12:16:29.368-05:002012-12-30T12:16:29.368-05:00Imaginary as opposed to non-imaginary? Buddhism, w...Imaginary as opposed to non-imaginary? Buddhism, which is one of the world's most popular religions has no notion of a supreme omnipotent creator deity, and yet it has managed to win a lot support in demographic terms. Christianity overtook Buddhism as late as the mid-20th century.<br /><br />More than a thousand years elapsed from the first attestation of Yahweh's name in the 9th century BC till the edict of Thessalonica, which made Christianity the sole official religion of the Roman Empire. For most of that time Abrahamic monotheism was a stricly tribal faith Whatever its "vast" appeal was, its effect was not immediate. Do give Q-continuum a little time to take root ;)Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75365859849573971812012-12-30T10:51:53.347-05:002012-12-30T10:51:53.347-05:00Exactly. The definition of a 'necessary' c...Exactly. The definition of a 'necessary' condition is that there's no other possible condition. Not that it happened the way it did, but there's zero probability that it *could* have happened another. The moment you concede that there *might* be an 'uncaused cause', you've conceded 'necessary', and the argument.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59020873738436138262012-12-30T06:20:30.294-05:002012-12-30T06:20:30.294-05:00If you have no evidence for why you think you shou...If you have no evidence for why you think you should marry somebody, don't do it.<br /><br />Logical proofs are a fucking joke.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76084027653770172142012-12-30T05:38:42.287-05:002012-12-30T05:38:42.287-05:00The notion of a Creator G-d who is Providentially ...The notion of a Creator G-d who is Providentially involved in the affairs of mankind. You are right, there are differences in understanding the nature of and/or will of G-d, but that basic idea has mass universal acceptance over a vast range of times, locations as well as political, economical, cultural and religious 'systems'.<br /><br />The various pagan gods of history and the imaginary gods like the Q continuum don't have that vast appeal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10081935272963066692012-12-30T05:35:08.495-05:002012-12-30T05:35:08.495-05:00And why were the Romans and Islamic empires inspir...And why were the Romans and Islamic empires inspired by the religion of Abraham? And I'm not sure which decline you are referring to. True, in certain sections of Western society there is a decline, in others there is an increase - and I believe in the world over there is an increase. I don't have the stats in front of me, but that's what I remember them saying last time I checked.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21766297672612046432012-12-29T15:58:58.985-05:002012-12-29T15:58:58.985-05:00It doesn't matter - the whole point is that wh...It doesn't matter - the whole point is that what these types of arguments show is that a mystery lies at the heart of existence. We can have no fundamental explanation, and certainly no fundamental scientific or natural explanation. This is why you get things like, God is the ground of all being, because being cannot be grounded naturally, or is grounded in mystery, or is grounded in the supernatural. There's no way out of this, and this is the simple fact that explains the why and where theology starts. Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4371247559119292012012-12-29T11:19:50.420-05:002012-12-29T11:19:50.420-05:00What sort of explanation is it susceptible to in y...What sort of explanation is it susceptible to in your book, then? To say that "the universe has a supernatural cause" is a pseudo-explanation, being just a conclusion derived from two premises: "the universe has no natural cause" and "everything has to have a cause". Of these, the former is questionable and the second completely unfounded.<br /><br />By the way, this is the last comment from me in this thread. I too often forget that feeding a troll leads nowhere. Instead of littering Larry's place with paraphilosophical gibberish you should be playing these parlour games on your own blog.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43775679113289644952012-12-29T11:00:35.149-05:002012-12-29T11:00:35.149-05:00Not at all. You're clearly obsessed with me by...Not at all. You're clearly obsessed with me by your own admission. Thinking about me while at home listening to the radio etc. Never posting about anything/anyone else. It's just me, me, me with you so to speak. <br /><br />And we are transcendent in the sense that we have, in certain respects, transcended physics, chemistry and biology in a way nothing else we know of in the universe has. That's what makes humanity special. Unclear why you hate that fact so much. Revel in it, even you are special.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13527226428964362722012-12-29T10:39:56.498-05:002012-12-29T10:39:56.498-05:00Quite the drama queen aren't you ?
Enjoy your...Quite the drama queen aren't you ?<br /><br />Enjoy your paranoid delusions, they comport quite well with the rest of your ravings.<br /><br />If ever there was proof that we humans share much in common with our primate cousins, it is the poo flinging screeds of that master of ontological onanism, and the pontificating, pretentious dumpster diver of philosophy.<br /><br />Transcendent my ass, look in a mirror and face reality.<br /><br />steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28127667346075711822012-12-28T15:01:12.388-05:002012-12-28T15:01:12.388-05:00It's not circular at all - it's just an ex...It's not circular at all - it's just an explanation of what the term means. And no I don't demand an explanation - I demand the possibility of explanation. I must have made this point about 10 times now. You, on the other hand, have no way of cashing out the terms natural/supernatural, and yet you still call everything natural, Thus your claim is empty because the point is that the universe is not susceptible to the kind of explanation that we call "a natural explanation". But as I already said, call it what you will, exactly the same considerations apply.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46224449496064373742012-12-28T14:40:46.601-05:002012-12-28T14:40:46.601-05:00LOL - you just threw a tantrum about me tying supe...<i>LOL - you just threw a tantrum about me tying supernatural to our explanatory capabilities and now you run straight there and tie natural to the exact same thing.</i><br /><br />Quite the opposite: I distinguish "being real/natural" from being explicable. You demand an explanation "in natural terms" to classify something as natural. This is circular to begin with, as well as vague (you have not defined "natural terms" yet), and it reduces the meaning of "supernatural" to "something that can't possibly be explained in the way we explain elements of the universe". Be my guest and use "supernatural" in this sense, but what for? What sort of cognitive gain do you get from it? You don't learn anything more about the origin of the universe than those who leave it as an open (and possibly unanswerable) question.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36653296898486997752012-12-28T12:21:54.288-05:002012-12-28T12:21:54.288-05:00LOL - you just threw a tantrum about me tying supe...LOL - you just threw a tantrum about me tying supernatural to our explanatory capabilities and now you run straight there and tie natural to the exact same thing. <br /><br />And re dark matter - is dark matter necessarily inexplicable in natural terms or just at present inexplicable? That's the key, the universe itself CANNOT BE explained in natural terms because there's nothing else to explain it in terms of.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18870123153924685072012-12-28T12:15:21.308-05:002012-12-28T12:15:21.308-05:00If "natural" is to be some kind of objec...If "natural" is to be some kind of objective label, it has little to do with our explanatory abilities. At present we can't account for some 84% of the matter in the universe, but nobody calls "dark matter" supernatural just because our best physical theories don't explain its existence. There may be some Gödelian limitations on what can be known even in principle, but they are epistemological (resulting from the way we "know" things), not ontological. Our knowledge is an abstract map of reality, not reality itself.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62517029934522061622012-12-28T11:55:16.811-05:002012-12-28T11:55:16.811-05:00Well if you're defining natural as anything th...Well if you're defining natural as anything that exists, then that would mean God, if He exists, is natural. And that's OK, He's just a different type of natural than all the other natural stuff. He's the type of "natural" that necessarily admits of no explanation or some such thing. The point being, twist the words anyway you like, the universe has no explanation the way the rest of the stuff does - and thus the difference (previously got at with the words natural/supernatural) simply resurfaces under some new definition which you use to try to help you sleep at night with your metaphysical fantasies seemingly (to you) intact. Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21411047286659128002012-12-28T11:27:19.782-05:002012-12-28T11:27:19.782-05:00Confusing epistemology with ontology is terribly b...Confusing epistemology with ontology is terribly bad philosophy. "Explanations" (including scientific ones) belong to the domain of human knowledge, they aren't part of reality; they evolve as we learn more, and give us more useful insights, but are inherently imperfect. The universe (and reality in general) needs no justification, no human licence to exist. It goes without saying that we can't know everything, but there's no reason to label anything "supernatural" just because we still can't account for it and perhaps never will.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64132040821803829472012-12-28T11:08:42.051-05:002012-12-28T11:08:42.051-05:00That'll be you having completely run out of an...That'll be you having completely run out of anything to say, but still unable to contain the urge, and thus you just blurt out the usual nonsense. <br /><br />This is about what the arguments show logically. Something you are quite unable to appraise because of your fanatical religious views. Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42394131256478644312012-12-28T09:27:40.961-05:002012-12-28T09:27:40.961-05:00No, I've demonstrated by a straightforward log...No, I've demonstrated by a straightforward logical argument that it can have no natural explanation. Here's the gist of it. All natural explanations explain X in terms of Y. Given that the universe/multiverse is everything that exists there is no other Y to explain it in terms of. Thus the universe/multiverse cannot have a natural explanation.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.com