tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post115911022188371242..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Angus Menuge develops Puddleglum's argument a different wayVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34258927992065869832011-05-04T17:00:37.230-07:002011-05-04T17:00:37.230-07:00I fully expect 'secularism' to abandon con...<i>I fully expect 'secularism' to abandon contingent naturalism sooner or later, based on conceptual problems with the proposition; and when that happens, theists had better not be leaning too hard on Cosmological Arguments (especially in their popularly kalam-flavored forms.)</i><br /><br />They wouldn't need to be leaning on them anymore at that point, since such an abandonment would mean a theistic victory on that front.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16513180590268759292011-05-02T09:40:11.482-07:002011-05-02T09:40:11.482-07:00I don't like this argument. We can form the co...I don't like this argument. We can form the conception of a Star Wars universe where gravity may be turned off, even though we live in a universe where gravity is always on. We can conceive of a circle, even though circles don't exist in the actual world.finneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716499100306513674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37811786188743169442011-05-01T17:01:45.245-07:002011-05-01T17:01:45.245-07:00I think Jason is mistaken. Hume discusses the idea...I think Jason is mistaken. Hume discusses the idea that the world as a whole exists necessarily in his dialogues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1159198653767622582006-09-25T08:37:00.000-07:002006-09-25T08:37:00.000-07:00On the other had, at the time of the main debates ...On the other had, at the time of the main debates about God as a necessary being, the 'secularists' did _NOT_ consider the universe to be contingent (in the sense of existing not-necessarily). That's a relatively new thing. The option before 20th century Bang theory, was always (or almost always) between Independent Fact characteristics: how many IFs there were (or could be), whether one or more systems existed, whether the IF was actively intentional or not, etc. It was rarely, if ever, about an IF simply springing into existence from nothing, as that would have been an immediately incoherent proposition.<BR/><BR/>I fully expect 'secularism' to abandon contingent naturalism sooner or later, based on conceptual problems with the proposition; and when that happens, theists had better not be leaning too hard on Cosmological Arguments (especially in their popularly kalam-flavored forms.)Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.com