tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post2776556305013522050..comments2023-10-15T08:36:48.841-07:00Comments on A Counter Apologist Blog: More back & forth with Blake!A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-40891527909272662772016-01-29T12:01:02.186-08:002016-01-29T12:01:02.186-08:00Trying to access the probability of naturalism is ...Trying to access the probability of naturalism is daft since the argument is that natural is contingent upon SN. How are you going to access the probability of a contingent universe with no necessity to produce it? The idea of SN as a juxtaposed realm is not the Christian concept, it's a modern science concept.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-57622281901926027752016-01-29T11:40:54.431-08:002016-01-29T11:40:54.431-08:00you can't apply Bayes to God. Carrier's us...you can't apply Bayes to God. Carrier's use of Bayes is a silly gimmick. <br /><br /><a href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2015/11/richard-carrier-and-bayes-craze.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Carrier and the Bayes Craze</b></a><br /><br />It specifically can't be used to argue <br />God is improbable. Here is my exchange on that with <a rel="nofollow"><b>Jeff Lowder.</b></a><br /><br /><a href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2013/03/my-answer-to-jeff-lowder-on-bayes-part-2.html" rel="nofollow"><b>part 2</b></a><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-67217306907962613872015-07-28T05:51:05.101-07:002015-07-28T05:51:05.101-07:00I'm going to refrain from responding point by ...I'm going to refrain from responding point by point, because otherwise we'll be at this forever and I think we're both a bit busy.<br /><br />I did want to clear up a few things. <br /><br />(b) I think the intrinsic probability (a priori) of naturalism vs supernaturalism is effectively even. I also don't think there's going to be a way to assess this that isn't going to beg the question one way or the other. <br /><br />(c) I should use more careful wording. "All minds we can observe are tied to brains". You're right I can't say "that we know of" without begging the question. My point will still stand given the revised premise, unless you want to say we've observed an unembodied mind. <br /><br />(f) If you think animals are in a moral arena, I'm rather shocked. Do you think animals can sin against god, or do you just mean they're in the moral arena in so far as they are things that hold at least some moral value that we humans as moral agents can be evaluated on how we treat them?<br /><br />As far as as Skype or hangout session, lets keep that open sometime. Work and family take up most of my time these days, and lately I've found the need to really engage in my more "fun" hobbies like gaming with friends when I can find my rare free time. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-14336910041543732382015-07-27T12:02:54.192-07:002015-07-27T12:02:54.192-07:00Fix: (e) This is false: x is the greatest possible...Fix: (e) This is false: x is the greatest possible being IMPLIES x has all goods. Blakehttp://beliefmap.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-42093472211047490472015-07-27T12:00:44.161-07:002015-07-27T12:00:44.161-07:00We’ll need to Skype sometime, for sure!
Sorry fo...We’ll need to Skype sometime, for sure! <br /><br />Sorry for the brevity here. Your points deserve much longer responses. If/when we Skype I’d argue for several things. Here are just a few:<br />(a) NBE supports theism over atheism because theism entails it; atheism does not. Mere “compatibility” is not the issue.<br />(b) There has been a misunderstanding of point on intrinsic probabilities. Forget the rational individual (a heuristic device); I’m telling you to consider whether, by reason alone, i.e. prior to any evidence, one can argue/predict that naturalism (as you’ve defined) is true. I.e., that space, matter, complex physics would exist (or anything like them). Answer: no. It’s intrinsic likelihood is low. <br />(c) I do not agree that “all minds we know of are tied to brains.” This is question-begging imo, and widely rejected across cultures and time. Same goes for “we know that all material things all have material causes.”<br />(d) You’re absolutely right about the “incredulous stare” point, I momentarily forgot you had built in physical stuff into naturalism. My bad! <br />(e) This is false: x has all goods>. There is a long discussion of compossibility here, God=good theory, dispositionally expressed properties, and other stuff. Also, the most worship-worthy possible being is not identical to the most valuable state(s) of affairs, if there is such a thing. <br />(f) Yes, the naturalist will think the mind emerges only from complex brains (or brain-like things), but this is as unpredicted and ad hoc as hypotheses come. Like, the ad hocness literally couldn’t be worse. (Mere logical compatibility, again, is virtually irrelevant.)<br />(f) I think animals are in a moral arena; they are in the relevant community (though I didn’t notice this until you asked). Set aside the possibility that animals engage in soul-making themselves (see Dougherty’s latest book); they are entities we can help/hurt, act responsibly towards etc. Don’ t understand the Bonobo Jesus point, lol.<br /><br />Again, you deserve a much better written response, but we’re both super busy at the moment I know. Thanks again for this excellent dialogue! I’m serious about that Skype conversation if you’re interested some time. Blakehttp://beliefmap.orgnoreply@blogger.com