Comments for Philosophy in the City http://philosophyinthecity.info Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:51:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Comment on Does God Exist? Lane Craig vs (some of) the new atheists by Rob Lewis http://philosophyinthecity.info/reasonable-faith-philosopher-tours-the-uk-to-debate-the-existence-of-god/#comment-5 Rob Lewis Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:51:51 +0000 http://philosophyinthecity.info/?p=467#comment-5 Hi Dan, I agree that the cosmological argument does throw up some wonderous questions. However, as far as an argument for the existence of the Christian God it isn't that convincing. Although, i think it works well as a piece of thinking to encourage further reflection on our existence and the possibility of God's existence. As such, the argument has great value. We can always note that if whatever begins to exist requires a prior cause then if the argument for God succeeds then God falls under the condition of that which begins to exist and a prior cause is required for God also, unless we want to make special dipensations for the existence of God. Even if the universe requires a first cause then why should we accept that the Christian God is the first cause, there seems to be no body of evidence that would compel us to accept this. It is assumed that the universe requires a first cause, why must we rule out Russell's notion that the universe is just a brute fact? The argument assumes that 'nothing' is just as logically possible as 'something' existing. Is this a reliable assumption, could it be that 'nothing' is a logical impossibility and the existence of 'something' a logical necessity? Plenty to think about, for me at least, still seeking. Best, Rob Hi Dan,

I agree that the cosmological argument does throw up some wonderous questions. However, as far as an argument for the existence of the Christian God it isn’t that convincing. Although, i think it works well as a piece of thinking to encourage further reflection on our existence and the possibility of God’s existence. As such, the argument has great value.

We can always note that if whatever begins to exist requires a prior cause then if the argument for God succeeds then God falls under the condition of that which begins to exist and a prior cause is required for God also, unless we want to make special dipensations for the existence of God.

Even if the universe requires a first cause then why should we accept that the Christian God is the first cause, there seems to be no body of evidence that would compel us to accept this.

It is assumed that the universe requires a first cause, why must we rule out Russell’s notion that the universe is just a brute fact?

The argument assumes that ‘nothing’ is just as logically possible as ‘something’ existing. Is this a reliable assumption, could it be that ‘nothing’ is a logical impossibility and the existence of ‘something’ a logical necessity?

Plenty to think about, for me at least, still seeking.

Best,

Rob

]]> Comment on There is no ‘Grandfather Paradox’ – says Liverpool Philosopher, Philip Goff by Mary Leng http://philosophyinthecity.info/there-is-no-grandfather-paradox-says-liverpool-philosopher-philip-goff/#comment-4 Mary Leng Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:14:42 +0000 http://philosophyinthecity.info/?p=440#comment-4 @Max - check out the film 'Twelve Monkeys' for a fully consistent time travel / terrorism story. In that film, given that the attack happens, the time travellers know full well that they can't have prevented, and all that they can hope to have succeeded in doing in their past travels is to get information that will help them in the future to cure people suffering from the virus the terrorist released. @Max – check out the film ‘Twelve Monkeys’ for a fully consistent time travel / terrorism story. In that film, given that the attack happens, the time travellers know full well that they can’t have prevented, and all that they can hope to have succeeded in doing in their past travels is to get information that will help them in the future to cure people suffering from the virus the terrorist released.

]]> Comment on There is no ‘Grandfather Paradox’ – says Liverpool Philosopher, Philip Goff by Max Morris http://philosophyinthecity.info/there-is-no-grandfather-paradox-says-liverpool-philosopher-philip-goff/#comment-3 Max Morris Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:42:32 +0000 http://philosophyinthecity.info/?p=440#comment-3 If it's proven to be a true phenomenon, effectively we will be able to communicate with our past selves! It wouldn't even take that much technological advancement, since we can already fire and detect neutrinos using existing equipment. At the most basic level, we could send a morse code message in neutrinos to the past! (I have a very limited knowledge of physics at this level, so please don't take my comments too seriously) The sending and receiving of information raises similar issues to the Grandfather Paradox. Say for example we were able to send back details of a (future) terrorist attack, which we are then able to prevent. The exact same pieces of information will have to sent back, even though we do not know how (or even if) the terrorist attack would have transpired without the given information being available to us. This would create a sort of perpetual loop of information, necessary to prevent the attack. This raises some interesting questions about inductive scepticism, since we would be able to know (certainly) how unobserved events in the future will transpire. Although I wonder if we would remain sceptical about the truth of such information. After all, some people might have hidden agendas for what information they wish to send back! If it’s proven to be a true phenomenon, effectively we will be able to communicate with our past selves! It wouldn’t even take that much technological advancement, since we can already fire and detect neutrinos using existing equipment. At the most basic level, we could send a morse code message in neutrinos to the past! (I have a very limited knowledge of physics at this level, so please don’t take my comments too seriously)
The sending and receiving of information raises similar issues to the Grandfather Paradox. Say for example we were able to send back details of a (future) terrorist attack, which we are then able to prevent. The exact same pieces of information will have to sent back, even though we do not know how (or even if) the terrorist attack would have transpired without the given information being available to us. This would create a sort of perpetual loop of information, necessary to prevent the attack.
This raises some interesting questions about inductive scepticism, since we would be able to know (certainly) how unobserved events in the future will transpire. Although I wonder if we would remain sceptical about the truth of such information. After all, some people might have hidden agendas for what information they wish to send back!

]]>