August 29, 2011
I added three new documents to the Papers page. If you don’t wish to download them, simply copy the URL and paste it into your browser’s address bar.
August 28, 2011
An evidential POE argument from Peter Hurford of Greatplay.net:
1. Needless suffering, by definition, is any suffering that doesn’t exist because of a higher good.
2. Needless suffering, by definition, could be eliminated with no consequences.
3. Any all-good entity desires to eliminate all needless suffering.
4. Any all-knowing entity would know of all needless suffering, if any needless suffering exists.
5. Any all-powerful entity would be capable of eliminating all needless suffering.
6. Our world contains needless suffering.
7. Therefore from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and 6, an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing entity cannot exist.
8. God, as described by the major religions is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing.
9. Therefore from 7 and 8, God as described by the major religions does not exist.
I recently said that all the POE arguments I’ve heard reduce to arguments from incredulity, and this argument is no different. Inability to conceive of a higher good is the only thing grounding the claim that any given instance of suffering is needless. 6 is a naked assertion sustained only by incredulity. That alone invalidates the argument in my opinion, but I can make a stronger case.
August 26, 2011
It’s no secret that people like Luke Muehlhauser endorse the creation of superintelligent AI as a means of saving the world. For me, a few questions arise.
1) Isn’t this a direct concession that human intelligence alone is incapable of creating a “perfect” world?
2) Per 1, mustn’t people like Luke Muehlhauser agree with me that a “perfect” world must follow given obedience to an all-knowing God Who has our best interests in mind?
3) What do you think people like Luke Muehlhauser would do if superintelligent AI came to conclusions that conflicted with their own moral preferences? For example, how do you think they would respond were AI to condemn homosexuality?
August 24, 2011
A passive agnostic by the name of Andrés Ruiz / Deux Ex Machina runs this blog. Warning: it’s addictive. I recommend the posts on the evidential POE. Much food for thought, with plenty of slow and careful philosophy (in contrast to the “buckshot” approach I’ve been indulging in lately).
Andrés: Are you the same “Ex Machina” I occasionally tangled with at Daylight Atheism, before, you know… Ebonmuse brought down the iron fist of censure? If so, howdy, and no hard feelin’s. Either way, nice blog.
August 23, 2011
So you might have heard that the Loftus put out a new book pompously titled, The End of Christianity, which includes a chapter from self-proclaimed infidel Richard Carrier, titled, Moral Facts Naturally Exist (and Science Could Find Them). Can we agree that this is an empirical claim? If so, can you imagine the consternation that might ensue if a reputable physics journal published a paper titled: The Higgs Boson Exists, And Science Could Find It?
August 20, 2011
In a recent discussion over at SoulSprawl, I encountered the following remark:
…solipsism is meaningless, not false, because there is no difference that we can know of, even in principle, that would tell apart a solipsist from a non-solipsist world.
The same goes for the doctrine of physicalism. To date, all definitions of physicalism I’ve seen lead to meaningless philosophical gibberish. There is nothing, even in principle, that could reliably differentiate between a physical and non-physical cause. If you agree, please affirm. If you disagree, state a precise definition of physicalism and we’ll go from there.
August 11, 2011
This, more or less, is what I tend to believe about morality:
Take, for example, that which we are now doing, drinking, singing and talking—these actions are not in themselves either good or evil, but they turn out in this or that way according to the mode of performing them; and when well done they are good, and when wrongly done they are evil; and in like manner not every love, but only that which has a noble purpose, is noble and worthy of praise.
-From Plato’s Symposium
What sayest thou?
August 4, 2011
So Matt DeStefano had asked me to comment on his article, Does Quantum Mechanics Revive Libertarian Free-Will?. Truth be told, and no offense to Matt, but I wasn’t very impressed. The main reason is because he pretends his treatment supports the conclusion, “free will is an illusion.” As far as particular gripes, well, first off… the classic materialist canard:
Traditional determinism has proclaimed that since there is causal closure, or there is no physical event which has a non-physical cause, events are wholly determined by their causes.
Aside from the standard allusion to cause-and-effect which we most all accept, this is meaningless tautology, made worse by the fact that no matter what physicists discover, it automatically falls under the rubric of “physical” in the minds of committed metaphysical naturalists.
