tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post9215976213996124589..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Evil Isn't the Problem, the Concept of God Is.Matt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-26708012496774431752009-07-19T04:25:22.200-07:002009-07-19T04:25:22.200-07:00最近TVや雑誌で紹介されている家出掲示板では、全国各地のネットカフェ等を泊り歩いている家出娘のメッセ...最近TVや雑誌で紹介されている家出掲示板では、全国各地のネットカフェ等を泊り歩いている家出娘のメッセージが多数書き込みされています。彼女たちはお金がないので掲示板で知り合った男性の家にでもすぐに泊まりに行くようです。あなたも書き込みに返事を返してみませんか家出http://ruby.iwatukisan.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-91484904616645585432009-07-17T08:02:22.624-07:002009-07-17T08:02:22.624-07:00最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ k.c.07...最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ k.c.0720@docomo.ne.jp 連絡待ってるよ☆メル友募集noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-72409276497095982992009-07-06T06:50:31.619-07:002009-07-06T06:50:31.619-07:00みんなの精神年齢を測定できる、メンタル年齢チェッカーで秘められた年齢がズバリわかっちゃう!かわいいあ...みんなの精神年齢を測定できる、メンタル年齢チェッカーで秘められた年齢がズバリわかっちゃう!かわいいあの子も実は精神年齢オバサンということも…合コンや話のネタに一度チャレンジしてみよう精神年齢http://new.haaaasagasou.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-28260598186317312372009-07-04T05:38:27.612-07:002009-07-04T05:38:27.612-07:00さあ、今夏も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか?当サイトは円助交際の逆、つまり女性が男性を円助する『逆...さあ、今夏も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか?当サイトは円助交際の逆、つまり女性が男性を円助する『逆円助交際』を提供します。逆円交際を未経験の方でも気軽に遊べる大人のマッチングシステムです。年齢上限・容姿・経験一切問いません。男性の方は無料で登録して頂けます。貴方も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか逆円助http://new.googlejuku-navi.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-11771482512116075832009-06-16T12:25:22.949-07:002009-06-16T12:25:22.949-07:00wow this other anon is impressive! Can we clone yo...wow this other anon is impressive! Can we clone you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-40009452546983545492009-06-02T19:59:11.519-07:002009-06-02T19:59:11.519-07:00"Also, a logical principle is true in every p..."Also, a logical principle is true in every possible world." <br /><br />How do we know? We have no data on any other universe;)<br /><br />Your right it is way off topic, but it was fun.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-91349784652570965612009-06-01T21:33:13.973-07:002009-06-01T21:33:13.973-07:00There is more than the Copenhagen and other indete...There is more than the Copenhagen and other indeterminate interpretations of QP, and a contradiction cannot be inferred or deduced unless you abandon the cornerstone of logic--which is the PONC. That has to be done dogmatically since there is not a sufficient reason to abandon it given that the POSR is predicated on the PONC. As for how to explain the slit experiment you could say that photons and waves exist independently at currently unknown instances rather than together at known instances. <br /><br />Also, a logical principle is true in every possible world, and in every instance in every world. If you say it isn't in at least one world or instance then it is not a logical principle. That makes logic itself breaks down. Anyhow, this is getting off topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-63621450961402985322009-06-01T20:41:30.362-07:002009-06-01T20:41:30.362-07:00"Wave-function collapse is not observed, it is inf..."Wave-function collapse is not observed, it is inferred. "<br /><br />So how should I view the data from the two-slit experiments? I contend that P and not P holds whether you use the Copenhagen or the Many Worlds interpretation. In any event, I have to assume P and not P to get the most probable outcomes. Which is all I'm concerned with; I want the best method of explaining what is observed and predicting future events. Metaphysical certitude may (does) make me feel good, but it doesn't test well empirically. If the evidence dictates a supernatural entity, I must accept it, even if it means I must change the rules of logic I use. Given with the available evidence to date, I place the probability of having to change my views at somewhere around 10^-34, I'm still not dogmatic about it.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-1142270941895826742009-06-01T11:43:30.155-07:002009-06-01T11:43:30.155-07:00Wave-function collapse is not observed, it is infe...Wave-function collapse is not observed, it is inferred. An equally efficient system that conserves the PONC is justifiable given that--since there is no means of confirming P and not P in the absence of observation--to say there is or is not a contradictory entity when there is no means of observation is an appeal to ignorance. WFC is one of many equally justified theories given the nature of justification via coherence (the negation of any system is as justified as the affirmation): however, since the PONC is required for logic itself it is preferred, as there would be no sufficient reason to accept any other approach since there would be no logical reason to do so. The Principle of Sufficient reason would go out the window as well. We might as well go back to alchemical spirits and communing with the beyond by getting rid of the PONC; there would be no sufficient reason to do otherwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-30758570043548710652009-05-30T11:26:20.141-07:002009-05-30T11:26:20.141-07:00Anonymous,
"I don't think P and not P has ever ch...Anonymous,<br /><br />"I don't think P and not P has ever changed."<br /><br />A good general observation. However, at the subatomic level, P and not P existing simultaneously, frequently does appear to occur. <br /><br />Also, I never dogmatically change my position on anything. But that aside, I accept non-contradiction (in the way I accept everything else) as rule that has never been falsified to date. If as in the above discussion, it were falsified in one instance, I would still accept it as a generally reliable tool, I just have new information that tells me it's not a 100% reliable. Hell, I don't throw out general relativity just because it breaks down at the quantum level.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-12714692285000670282009-05-29T14:17:55.136-07:002009-05-29T14:17:55.136-07:00"Deductive atheology has taken a couple of approac..."Deductive atheology has taken a couple of approaches. First, it has been argued that a single, essential property that is attributed to God is incoherent. Omnipotence or omniscience is impossible, for instance. And since God wouldn’t be God without omnipotence, then God is impossible. In a related set of arguments, logicians and philosophers have begun to suspect that since after centuries of effort we cannot devise an account of what omnipotence and omniscience are, the right conclusion to draw is that there really can be no such thing. This is not a deductive argument that they are impossible, as such. It’s more of a throwing up of the hands—nobody has been able to give a sensible account of the properties so it’s time to move on. It doesn’t make sense, after a point, to keep trying to sustain our concept of the aether, phlogiston, or caloric. At the very least, these arguments shift the burden on proof heavily onto the theist"<br /><br />Just because we cant amke sense of something doesnt mean its false or fantasy. Does a nomad in the african desert have justification for dismissing TV because he hasnt the scientific understanding of E and B fields?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-51299925196507346912009-05-29T14:13:32.441-07:002009-05-29T14:13:32.441-07:00When I was a Christian, I never had a problem with...When I was a Christian, I never had a problem with tsunamis or earthquakes. What changed my mind was the amount of unnecessary suffering inherent in evolution. Take Tay–Sachs disease. Infants with Tay-Sachs disease appear to develop normally for the first six months of life. Then, as nerve cells become distended with gangliosides, a relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities occurs. The child becomes blind, deaf, and unable to swallow. Muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in. Death usually occurs before the age of 4. <br /><br />What would it take for me to reconsider my position? I think nothing short of the falsifying evolution will do.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00231512403452969975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-53066164763278952272009-05-28T23:44:24.472-07:002009-05-28T23:44:24.472-07:00I don't think P and not P has ever changed. Things...I don't think P and not P has ever changed. Things that are contradictory do not exist. If you changed your mind about the omni-god you would have to dogmatically reject the principle of non-contradiction, since a contradictory entity has never been observed and also cannot be inferred or deduced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-49967676742577112962009-05-28T21:42:20.926-07:002009-05-28T21:42:20.926-07:00Granted, the omni-God is logically incoherent. Bu...Granted, the omni-God is logically incoherent. But historically, the rules of logic have had to change over time to match newly acquired data (no reason to think that our current generation has reached the pinnacle of observation).<br /><br />So could I change my mind? Certainly. If Omni-god begins to spontaneously heal amputees, save his/her select (whoever they might be) from tragedies by violating every known law of nature, scientifically demonstrate that intercessory prayer causes significant differences in causal event outcomes and moves the stars around in a day to places that astronomers on every corner of the globe can agree didn't happen naturally, not only am I believer, I'm an evangelist.<br /><br />A tough list of criteria you might say. Not really. An omni-god would have caused my brain to be empirically oriented, would know that to be true and given that s/he was the cause and also the eternal judge of my of future, would certainly provide the evidence necessary so that I did not err (I use the word I but I'm definitely not the only empiricist on the planet).<br /><br />So do I find omni-god logically incoherent? Absolutely.<br /><br />Based on that am I dogmatic about accepting evidence for omni-god's existance? Absolutely not!<br /><br />Is the evidential bar I set really high? Yes it is, but we are discussing an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omni-benevolent intelligence. For such an intelligence, it seems to be a rather low hurdle.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-10840297567913055182009-05-28T10:21:39.973-07:002009-05-28T10:21:39.973-07:00"Hick and others have plausibly argued that real m..."Hick and others have plausibly argued that real moral growth in free, finite creatures like us requires a challenging world that is not a hedonistic paradise."<br /><br />I think Ketan has already hit on this, but what would be the point of moral growth in a hedonistic paradise? There would hardly be the need.mikespeirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397674737999065117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-344047192051843312009-05-27T13:59:16.362-07:002009-05-27T13:59:16.362-07:00Deductive atheology is my favorite approach. Belie...Deductive atheology is my favorite approach. Believing in the logically impossible is a departure from sanity. Logical and sane reasoning are synonymous. Deductive atheology is the strongest type of argument against God, since inferential atheology leaves open the possibility of God, making faith rational--which it cannot be because it is faith. This displays the inherent irrationality of belief in God that is supported by an ever-increasing body of evidence indicating robust relationships between faith and mental illness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-16869504390476802272009-05-27T13:55:36.941-07:002009-05-27T13:55:36.941-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09636796527419941902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-86913680722715856672009-05-27T12:48:22.169-07:002009-05-27T12:48:22.169-07:00Matt,
I didn't understand why the argument that--...Matt,<br /><br />I didn't understand why the argument that--the God just could have not made a world where there'd be no CAUSE (including human behavior and factors in physical environment) for suffering--is worthy of acceptance, if we're to call the same God omnipotent as well as all-good (benevolent, kind etc.)? If all the physical factors like floods, diseases, famine, etc. that cause suffering would have not been CREATED (as against eliminating them after their creation), and if the thoughts and tendencies that could lead one to do wrong (evil) would have not been instilled in the human mind, then there'd have been no suffering, and the God would have still been omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good. But, our world is NOT like that. What's the harm if in the process the world would turn out to be a 'hedonistic paradise'?<br /><br />There's nothing different here that I've proposed from what you've anyway stated in your prior posts. But, I really didn't understand why do we need to accept incorporation of a moral 'learning curve' in the argument for a PERFECT God? A perfect God could've created us with perfect moral system without any suffering. Sending us, humans, with possibility of sinning when it'd been entirely possible to do away with such possibility seems a very circuitous and cruel (as it causes perceptible suffering) method of developing human's moral system.<br /><br />I'd done a very amateurish post in an attempt to explore the basis of my morality. Would love to have your comments there:<br /><br />http://ketanpanchal.blogspot.com/2009/05/my-morality.html<br /><br />Take care.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.com