http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYjnL2PqUg
What was not so witty about Witty was his remark about: "how would a non-geocentric universe look?"
The lack of wit therein is that there is more than one non-geocentric universe thinkable that would look geocentric even if not. That fact does not prove any of them to be the true one, and so that remark is no reason at all to abandon geocentrism. It is easy to debunk reason - including its intuitions at the base - if you allow yourself to take for granted, instead of the intuitions, each purported debunking of them.
Oh, and non-Euclidean geometry is not non-Euclidean other than in terminology. Euclid by straight line means one straight in relation to the three dimensions, not just straight in relation to the twodimensional surface. With this in mind, the new geometry is of course nothing like a debunking of Euclid, it is, though in itself a series of truths, misnaming things to make that false impression./HGL
Part 2: Misstating the logic of opponents, are you?
- Premiss 1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- Premiss 2 The Universe began to exist.
- Premiss 3 Therefore the universe has a cause.
- Conclusion 4 This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because he chose to make the universe.
The real logic of "five ways" or rather the Bonaventura argument or - I suppose - kalam cosmological argument would be something like this:
- Premiss 1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- Premiss 2 The Universe began to exist.
- Conclusion 3 Therefore the universe has a cause. Which for the sake of convenience we will refer to as God, because it is usual.
- NEXT QUESTION: Is God ... (simple/composed, personal/impersonal, et c.)
The appeal for "purging our psychology" is seriously taken a threat to man kind and lightly taken ... not a big deal, and what about purging your own psychology from the overreliance on a track record which might not be the real one?/HGL
No comments:
Post a Comment