tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7953359551089173424..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Another argument for atheism- the argument from explanatory vacuityVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger304125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51610196539959960932011-03-21T09:16:52.553-07:002011-03-21T09:16:52.553-07:00Paps simply buy your own Xbox 360 & you will h...Paps simply buy your own Xbox 360 & you will have a shot at being cool again & for God's sake don't tell anybody about the Wii.<br /><br />Enjoy the echo chamber.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75356707241520619842011-03-21T04:40:28.334-07:002011-03-21T04:40:28.334-07:00[cont.4]
So while metaphysics is a wonderfully cr...[cont.4]<br /><br />So while metaphysics is a wonderfully creative mind exercise, solely construed within the brain, it is a largely a descriptor and a clarifier, that is, a sieve through which like-stuff are categorized in some systematic way. There are many different definitions of metaphysics depending on the field to which it is applied. Generally it means, the science of mental phenomena and of the laws of mind. Although, others would argue that it includes the natural world as well. But while the content of metaphysics may include the natural world, there are simply no discernible physical effects or actual circumstances that can be attributed to a metaphysical cause. any such claim is just bunkum.<br /><br />Metaphysics by its very nature is much beloved of theologians and Apologists. For them it is a form of legitimation of the 'reality' of the existence of a god[s]. But it is a misconstrued 'reality' gravely mistaking effect with causation.<br /><br />I would suggest it fair to say, most philosophers would agree that metaphysical claims are not scientific and that contradictory metaphysical positions cannot be tested empirically to determine which is false. For example, materialism and dualism are contradictory but both theories are coherent and consistent with experience, and there is no empirical event that could falsify either theory. Kant was right in saying that although we can never hope to answer our metaphysical questions, we can't help asking them anyway. Metaphysics is a mind game. Nothing more. Nothing less.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7087692271476472011-03-21T04:38:53.859-07:002011-03-21T04:38:53.859-07:00[cont.3]
4. Finally, the problem of linguistics....[cont.3]<br /><br />4. Finally, the problem of linguistics. When one talks of 'reliable', it is a concept rooted in empiricism. There's no reason to believe that in metaphysics, concepts/words from empiricism will still work. Take, for example, the term 'causality'. Within empiricism, it denotes a relationship between two events. Namely, that the occurrence of one event necessitates the other. If event A, then event B. There's no reason to believe that this idea applies to metaphysics. The idea that 'the empirical world must be caused', by example, is assuming that causality applies outside of the empirical world. There is no argument or evidence for this. Put short, it is assumed that a domain-specific concept can be used as domain-general. Again, without evidence, and without argument. [I draw on Jason Roberson for the conception of these points] <br />[cont.]Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63507977268817041852011-03-21T04:37:39.256-07:002011-03-21T04:37:39.256-07:00[cont.2]
2. Another great problem of metaphysics...[cont.2]<br /><br />2. Another great problem of metaphysics is the problem of the *possibility* of metaphysics. It is conceivable (leaving aside possible) that there may be evidence and arguments that metaphysics is possible [philosophically at least], but that we simply have none for specific content, meaning that there is something ineffable that we ineptly express with 'existence' when used metaphysically, but that it still denotes something. For this, no evidence or argument has ever been posited. No philosopher hitherto has seen fit to explore this issue. <br /><br />3. There are very great doubts whether it is possible to mount an argument or evidence for either of the above problems. This means, the third great problem of metaphysics is that there is no reason to believe that we are able to ever do metaphysics. This means, put simply, that there is no basis on which to assume that either arguments or evidence, respectively, ratio or senses, are capable of providing the sort of information that would qualify as evidence of the possibility of metaphysics. Quite clearly, metaphysical content is not empirical, and there is no evidence or argument to believe that our minds are capable of anything beyond rudimentary problem solving. That is, our minds are only capable of actualizing in the physical, natural world through the five senses. All else remains the property and within the bounds of the brain and its concomitant 'meta'-physical ideation.<br />[cont.]Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44295061247458915402011-03-21T04:36:13.066-07:002011-03-21T04:36:13.066-07:00From Ben Yachov: "Metaphysics
http://en.wiki...From Ben Yachov: "Metaphysics<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism#Metaphysics<br /><br /><br />PapaL<br /><br />Metaphysics is simply ideation formulated in the brain and mindstate, a mind map, to facilitate discussion on the nature of existence. Any attribution to the existence of a god through metaphysics is extrapolated nonsense. Metaphysics is a systematized study of conjecture formulated in the mind to explain the nature of life and to give it some form of meaning. <br /><br />Metaphysics can only operate within the mind. There are no physical externalities to the exercise of metaphysics. And in that context what do we end up with? We end up with the four great problems of Metaphysics. <br /><br />1. That metaphysical content, that is, the concept of thing-in-itself, has no argument or evidence to substantiate it. There is no way of measuring 'reliability' within metaphysics, or what that would mean. Within the empirical world, science is the most reliable tool for measurement. Reliable simply means that it (often) makes accurate predictions and reproducible results. However, the empirical world is a construct of predictions, of expected results, so even the world 'reliable' CAN NOT be used in reference to metaphysics. [cont.]Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21856390991287045782011-03-21T04:32:57.255-07:002011-03-21T04:32:57.255-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82116401169126080392011-03-21T04:28:00.338-07:002011-03-21T04:28:00.338-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32732179084680789202011-03-20T21:07:03.780-07:002011-03-20T21:07:03.780-07:00Thanks for the links Ben I'll have a look for ...Thanks for the links Ben I'll have a look for sure.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1781406796097525232011-03-20T19:28:51.792-07:002011-03-20T19:28:51.792-07:00Sorry to punk out BDK.
>"To say that God ...Sorry to punk out BDK.<br /><br />>"To say that God is good is for the classical theist to say something very different, and something that it is, frankly, not easy to summarize for readers unfamiliar with certain key metaphysical doctrines characteristic of classical, and especially Scholastic, philosophy, such as the doctrine of the convertibility of the transcendentals, the notion of evil as privation, and the principle of proportionate causality."<br /><br />>Where is there a concise, understandable, explication of this? Note the first desiteratum is incompatible with the response being a link to more Feser.<br /><br />So I will use the wiki for the concise, understandable, explication of this.<br /><br /><br />Metaphysics<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism#Metaphysics<br /><br />Transcendentals<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentals<br /><br />& as a Bonus<br />THE 24 theses<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism#Thomistic_philosophy<br /><br />It not lack of confidence in my ability to explain it's I'm growing tired of the topic and I want to move on. Plus the kids drove me nuts today.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79705998849483933732011-03-20T15:52:36.460-07:002011-03-20T15:52:36.460-07:00Papalinton is just upset because his mom, aunt or ...Papalinton is just upset because his mom, aunt or whatever bought him a Wii instead of an XBOX or PLAYSTATION and he actually thinks that makes him cool.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-777104882346726932011-03-20T12:57:50.280-07:002011-03-20T12:57:50.280-07:00@ Ben Yachov
"Verses Paps an Atheist who mere...@ Ben Yachov<br />"Verses Paps an Atheist who merely cuts & Pastes from Protestant Apologetic websites in order to change the subject & avoid making a plausible rational educated criticism of Classic Philosophical theology."<br /><br />So really Ben, your beef and anxiety is really directed at the Protestants? And as I am really only a messenger but it's fair game for a catholic like you to kill the messenger. This would be consistent with how catholics treated messengers in the past 2,000 years. They have an established track record for doing away opposition they do not like. I'm thankful, and no thanks to your god, who would do bugger-all, that people like you don't practice the time-honored catholic barbecuing or garroting or racking people any more, as much as your brain is screaming for that to occur.<br /><br />Hopping away onto your xbox is just another imaginary world for which you are so familiar with its close links to the imaginary world of catholic bunkum. At least BDK, can distinguish the difference between theism and Medal of Honor.<br /><br />SheeshPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22069661447560975452011-03-20T12:43:44.137-07:002011-03-20T12:43:44.137-07:00@ Ben Yachov
"Well a clock that is stopped is...@ Ben Yachov<br />"Well a clock that is stopped is right at least twice a day."<br /><br />So, by analogy, you are saying god is only right twice a day, or god is only dead twice a day, or god exists only twice a day, or god is only good twice a day, or god is only non-good twice a day, or a dead body only exists twice a day, or a body only dies twice a day?Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34749830300504713102011-03-20T12:24:47.413-07:002011-03-20T12:24:47.413-07:00>And frankly 300 posts in I'm not going to ...>And frankly 300 posts in I'm not going to articulate my views on morality.<br /><br />No problem.<br /><br />>Elder Scrolls V and Uncharted 3 come out this November.<br /><br />Interesting thought I am more into SciFi, Post-apocalyptic and Zombie survival games. But I have been tempted to try fantasy.....<br /><br />I have to wait. These days money is tight and I have to wait till prices come down or I might buy a GAME of the Year addition since they always come with the XBOX live downloads.<br /><br />Cheers.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13951073641851463972011-03-20T08:44:55.974-07:002011-03-20T08:44:55.974-07:00Elder Scrolls V and Uncharted 3 come out this Nove...Elder Scrolls V and Uncharted 3 come out this November.<br /><br />AWESOME!!! My two favorite franchises.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44198633195983669572011-03-20T08:42:10.537-07:002011-03-20T08:42:10.537-07:00I think of me Ben to Ilion:
Of course he hasn'...I think of me Ben to Ilion:<br /><i> Of course he hasn't made the case for his version of Atheism so one wonders why he is inserting himself in the Catholic & Protestant fight.</i><br /><br />I want to understand the different perspectives. The Catholic view is particularly interesting, I was raised Protestant so find all this educational. Plus I appreciate Catholicism for the same reason I like representative democracy rather than direct democracy.<br /><br />If I'm giving a reductio argument against God (the God of PT anyway), I don't need to believe the premises. That's sort of the point of a reductio, to use your opponent's beliefs against him. Ilion never really understood that.<br /><br />So even if I don't have a positive theory of morality, that's beside the point. As I said, it's a total red herring in the context of arguing about the problem of evil. But that won't stop Ilion, which is what makes him so entertaining he won't let logic stop him.<br /><br />And frankly 300 posts in I'm not going to articulate my views on morality.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70016845163394207292011-03-20T08:34:49.848-07:002011-03-20T08:34:49.848-07:00>Most importantly, Ben, how is that game?
Mass...>Most importantly, Ben, how is that game?<br /><br />Mass Effect 2 is Awesome! I finished the main suicide mission! <br />Lost 3 crew members!<br /><br />I briefly started to Play ME 1 but grew bored with it. Now my interest is peaked enough to go back to it to hold me over till Christmas & I can ask for ME 3 when it comes out.<br /><br />I can't recomend it enought. That & Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas.<br /><br />Now I must go to Mass(not effect the real one it's Sunday).BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10655799061941420812011-03-20T08:31:01.621-07:002011-03-20T08:31:01.621-07:00>I realize I should cut Feser some slack.
Fair...>I realize I should cut Feser some slack.<br /><br />Fair as always. <br /><br />>He has to spell everything out explicitly partly because he is dealing with creationist-nutjob types so often (i.e., protestant fundamentalists) who are just uncharitable, ungracious, often ignorant interlocutors who will pounce on any apparent gap in what he says.<br /><br />Yep!<br /><br />Cheers!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12511938016673608822011-03-20T08:28:32.126-07:002011-03-20T08:28:32.126-07:00Most importantly, Ben, how is that game?
I'm ...Most importantly, Ben, how is that game?<br /><br />I'm playing Medal of Honor now. It is good. Not Modern Warfare good, but decent enough for Gamefly. 7/10Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43178645543853682902011-03-20T08:22:13.981-07:002011-03-20T08:22:13.981-07:00LOL Ilion glad to have you back I always found you...LOL Ilion glad to have you back I always found your zingers funny I hope you keep posting.<br /><br />Incidentally, BanYachov I realize I should cut Feser some slack. He has to spell everything out explicitly partly because he is dealing with creationist-nutjob types so often (i.e., protestant fundamentalists) who are just uncharitable, ungracious, often ignorant interlocutors who will pounce on any apparent gap in what he says.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44748909853370653732011-03-20T08:07:12.428-07:002011-03-20T08:07:12.428-07:00I am now going to stop answering Paps & Ilion....I am now going to stop answering Paps & Ilion.<br /><br />Neither is interested in serious discussion. Tonight I will post my final response to BDK. Maybe he & I can have another discussion in the near future without the kids yapping at our feet.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53224377603610929972011-03-20T08:02:41.205-07:002011-03-20T08:02:41.205-07:00@Ilíon
>Indeed. As best I can tell, this &quo...@Ilíon <br /><br />>Indeed. As best I can tell, this "God of Classical Theism" is no more The Living God than is the view/conception of God that Ben (and Feser) continuously attribute to "those fundies" ... which is to say, to people like me.<br /><br />So what you are saying Ilion is you are a Theistic Personalist and that is why you have been grouchy towards me(that and the fact I am friendly toward BDK whom you can't stand & are also mad at me for not tribally "siding" with you against him).<br /><br />>The answer to the previous question is: not only can 'good' not be explained in terms of atheism/naturalism, its reality is contrary to the whole worldview <br /><br />I would most likely agree with certain qualifications. But it is off topic much like Paps cut/paste from Alpha & Omega ministries or Bill Webster or Tribalog. Of course he hasn't made the case for his version of Atheism so one wonders why he is inserting himself in the Catholic & Protestant fight.<br /><br />>BDK exhibits -- yet again -- his trollishness and intellectual dishonesty. Is anyone surprised?<br /><br />There are two trolls here & neither is named BDK, GREV or BenYachov.<br /><br />Do the math.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71765125539435336722011-03-20T07:52:23.307-07:002011-03-20T07:52:23.307-07:00>Greatly influenced by Augustine, the provincia...>Greatly influenced by Augustine, the provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century included the apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon. <br /><br />Your unstated assumption that they where using 66 book canons prior to this is unproven. Even Athanasius says plainly the Disputed OT books where being read in the Churches of his time as Scripture.<br /><br />>A disingenuous believer, a purveyor of half-truths, <br /><br />Verses Paps an Atheist who merely cuts & Pastes from Protestant Apologetic websites in order to change the subject & avoid making a plausible rational educated criticism of Classic Philosophical theology.<br /><br />My how desperate.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45073409606507869722011-03-20T07:41:29.155-07:002011-03-20T07:41:29.155-07:00>Neither jesus nor any of the New Testament wri...>Neither jesus nor any of the New Testament writers ever once quoted from the Apocrypha.<br /><br />Nor do they quote Esther, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastics Joshua etc yet the Epistle to the Hebrews does reference events in Maccabees and the Gospel of John makes reference to Jesus celebrating the feast of Dedication(which was first authorized in Maccabees).<br /><br />>First Esdras which had been included by Carthage; while Second Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah combined in a single book in the Septuagint) were distinguished as two separate books (First Esdras and Second Esdras, also known as Nehemiah)."<br /><br />I reply: Ezra and Nehemiah where called 1st & 2nd Esdras in Latin. The apocryphal Esdras where called 3rd & 4rd Esdras(thought the books call themselves 1& 2) by contemporaries in the 4th century. <br /><br />http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp<br /><br />Carthage did not accept the apocryphal 1 Esdras but the canonical 1 Esdras.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13448203398570263512011-03-20T07:25:34.787-07:002011-03-20T07:25:34.787-07:00off the top of my head
>These were regional co...off the top of my head<br /><br />>These were regional councils not authorized to speak for the church as a whole.<br /><br />Yet they where endorsed by the Pope thus they represent an exercise of the ordinary and universal Church Authority via the Pope universal authority.<br /><br />>Athanasius, one of the early 'church fathers', clearly declared the canonical Scriptures alone were to be used for determining doctrine.<br /><br />Actually if you read Athanasius he merely said one should only use scripture when disputing with Arians since they reject Tradition & Nicea.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31426726707878857592011-03-20T07:19:27.673-07:002011-03-20T07:19:27.673-07:00>Tell me how a 'body' exists, Ben, say ...>Tell me how a 'body' exists, Ben, say from an archeological site in Egypt? Or a digging in Mesopotamia?<br /><br />Seriously?<br /><br />How does the sun exist & how does a Flying Pasta Creature not exist?<br /><br />You don't get the existence vs non-existence dichotomy?<br /><br />Seriously?<br /><br />This is hard for you? Well a clock that is stopped is right at least twice a day. This explains your one lapse into intelligence and your return to your natural state of willed super-stupidity. <br /><br />You are due at least one more intelligent statement by the clock analogy. I look forward to reading it if and when it appears.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.com