gdp's Comments

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : The Anthropic Argument Against the Existence of God

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:38:06 +0000

I think there is still some disanalogy because I think the matter of intelligence is much more important than you are realizing. The goldfish is not an intelligent being, whereas the Chuman (per hypothesis) would be one that would "suffer" unnecessarily (given that there is the Human alternative). (8) follows from (5) and (7), that seems clear to me. There is not a possible world in which God exists alone if (5) and (7) are true, right?

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : The Anthropic Argument Against the Existence of God

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:09:18 +0000

Hello, Perhaps we can simply take Adam's point and say that it is wrong for the man to breed Goldfish. Or we might say that there is a disanalogy given the intelligence of the beings we are speaking of in the Anthropic argument. At least, I'm inclined to say that while I may not share such a prima facie position of wrongness with regard to the Goldfish breeder, I do with regard to God. (8) isn't false if it is true that creating members of S is the best action. If you'd want to argue that not creating any beings at all is the best action, you are welcome to do so, but I would think this antithetical to your position.

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Ryft on "A Possible Disproof of God's Existence"

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 04:17:18 +0000

Thanks Josh! I checked that out shorty thereafter and later went on to read Weilenberg's paper on the topic. I wrote a later article saying that given the modified definitions, the argument fails. See:http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-possible-... Thanks for commenting!

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Objective Morality and the Bible

Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:18:52 +0000

I think I agree with you on most of your points here. I'd just like to add that even if one does take the Garden of Eden to be metaphorical, it doesn't seem to follow that Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary since while it may not be the case that two people, specifically Adam and Eve in a certain place committed sin against God, it could still be true that in some fashion sin was committed against God which would require some atonement, etc.

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : A Review of The "New" Atheism

Sun, 4 Apr 2010 04:25:42 +0000

Cheers! It is a welcome submission.

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Zao on the Transcendental Argument

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:51:09 +0000

I'm actually thinking now that I may not reply directly but rather use some points you've raised as a launching point for an article in the future. I assume you are okay with this?

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Zao on the Transcendental Argument

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:41:00 +0000

I know, right?

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Zao on the Transcendental Argument

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:57:03 +0000

Cheers! I should have some time to reply to your next piece in a week or two, school is almost over and I have a lot to do as I'm sure you can imagine. Thanks Zao.

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Zao on the Transcendental Argument

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:04:18 +0000

Cheers for the comments Chris. If Zao brings up similar criticisms I'll write about them then, if not, I'll wait for you to come back =P. Enjoy your vacation!

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : A Conversion

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:15:27 +0000

I think I agree largely with Josh here, we should be commending Nocterro at the very least for showing a willingness to follow the evidence where he thinks it leads.

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : A Conversion

Wed, 3 Mar 2010 21:28:01 +0000

Hahaha... if I do make a similar announcement I think it will be for different reasons than Nocterro has posted. But, I wouldn't bet any money on my doing so. Or would I?

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : A Conversion

Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:10:54 +0000

Right, there are properties which begin to be exemplified in the bread that were not previously exemplified in that which composes the bread.

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Urban Philosophy Projects

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:28:21 +0000

Thanks for all of your support! =)

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Non-Theistic Objective Morality

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:52:27 +0000

Do you disagree? You're committed to at least three of these claims, are you not?

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Non-Theistic Objective Morality

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:58:56 +0000

I did make a mistake in responding. 'Pain is intrinsically bad' is an ethical axiom that grounds the moral truth of, say, torturing Bob for fun is wrong. It wouldn't entail that one is morally culpable for the experience of pain, rather since we're speaking of morality it seems clear to me that we are talking about the 'action' while taking into consideration the issues of moral agency. We need to differentiate between the state of 'being' and the state of 'causing' since in matters of moral agency, the 'causing' is the one that applies. In response to your second question, I'd like to quote T.J Mawson from 'The Euthyphro Dilemma' in Think: Winter 2008 p.27: "Wherever there is agonizing pain, whether in people or animals, it cannot – of logical necessity – be anything other than bad. We wouldn’t call it ‘agonizing pain’ if it wasn’t bad." The intrinsic badness of pain is contained within the concept of pain. If the ethical truth were explained by anything other, it could not be an axiom.

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Non-Theistic Objective Morality

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:44:31 +0000

It seems to me that a state of affairs can be morally good overall, all things considered, even if it has some wrongmaking properties. I suppose the question we would have to ask ourselves upon the examination of some state of affairs is whether or not the rightmaking properties outweigh the wrongmaking properties.

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Non-Theistic Objective Morality

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:35:06 +0000

The notion of social agreement does create a lot of confusion surrounding Conventionalism. One of our members is working on an article regarding the system that should serve to clear some things up.

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Non-Theistic Objective Morality

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:34:02 +0000

If the moral laws are truly objective in the manner outlined above then whether or not you permit someone to do something to you has no effect on whether or not that action is moral. What is moral, being objective, can't change under this view.

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Non-Theistic Objective Morality

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:29:36 +0000

That pain is intrinsically bad is an ethical fact, and no fetus would be held morally responsible because it feels pain during an abortion. It seems obvious to me that one needs to consider the notions of moral agency. That pain is intrinsically bad does not entail that one is morally culpable for being subject to that bad state of affairs, but rather this ethical axiom lays the foundation for moral propositions such as: one should not cause pain to another. Why? Because, pain is intrinsically bad. That is to say, that pain is intrinsically bad is not a moral fact, it is an ethical fact. I apologize if I did not make this clear, but it is not prescriptive in nature. Yet, it is not explained by any other fact, hence its status as an ethical axiom. Ah, I see above that I did refer to it as a 'moral' axiom which might have leant to the lack of clarity here. What I meant by this is that it is a foundation for moral claims, but not a moral claim in itself.

Urban Philosophy :: Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom : Non-Theistic Objective Morality

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:24:44 +0000

Why do you find it odd Chris?