Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

Post by yters » Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 2:42 AM UTC

maroonblazer wrote: post #225

yters wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dawkins' argument that the presupposition of god requires then yet another explanation of god. He doesn't realize this criticism applies to any posited ultimate cause, including physicalism. In fact this very issue forms the foundation for some of the classic arguments for God. The only way the regress can terminate is with an uncaused cause, which only can be met by a godlike being. So followed to its logical conclu…

I don't think Harris would claim he's making philosophical arguments aimed at philosophers. I think he would say he's making arguments against beliefs that most people (non-philosopher) hold. Most people who show up to church don't claim that they worship a god who just so happens to not be good. They believe in a god is perfectly good, who takes an interest in their personal lives and will decide the subjective natu…

Yes, no one else has ever grappled with the problem of evil. Harris is certainly a trailblazer speaking unmentionable truths.

Post by yters » Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 2:44 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #234

yters wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's the problem with all proofs. If the premises are false the proof is not sound. That doesn't preclude the proof being tight, i.e. as in well reasoned and logically argued. Outside of mathematics you will be hard pressed to find a proof where someone doesn't disagree with a premise or two. And even within math we have intuitionists and constructivists claiming things like proof by negation is invalid. So if…

> Well that's the problem with all proofs No, its the problem with pure logical proofs , which is why for statements about reality rather than abstract relations of concepts, empirical proofs (despite being less absolute) are generally preferred. > the ontological argument Since you have merely waved at and sketched the argument, let me do the same it's demolition: existence is not a predicate.

I guess that means we cannot say anything exists. Sounds sensible to me.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking