Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Philosophical Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (128)	8/2/2005 2:21:33 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 26251

<The miserable wretches of this world will always create other worldly gods for themselves.> Not to argue, but his {to me} looks like a statement that comes from your inner beliefs only. Lot's of miserable wretches create nothing of the sort... all sorts of atheists are miserable wretches as well, for example, and others project their problems on other people or worldly problems rather than a god... especially in todays world. Suffering is misery {from the Buddhist perspective} comes from any separaration of self from "the one", not just the separation that comes from creating a 'god out there somewhere'... although that is certainly an important source of suffering. DAK

To: Rarebird who wrote (128)	8/4/2005 5:35:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26251

The Cosmological Argument is invalid because it tries to derive a specific cause from an effect. Just because the effect is true does not mean a specific cause follows. q p implies q Conclusion: p Invalid Cosmological Argument I don't think that is the real form of the argument. You assert that they are affirming the consequent. intrepidsoftware.com I think that is a misreading of the situation. The argument is more like q q implies p Conclusion p I think you would take exception with the premise "q implies p", or specifically that the existence of the idea of perfection must come from a perfect being. But your objection is properly that the premise is untrue not that the form of the argument is invalid. Generally a a implies b Therefore b Is a completely valid argument, and that is the form of the argument involved in this case. But of course a valid argument only means that if the premises are true the conclusion is true. If the premises are false then the conclusion can easily be false. Tim

To: Rarebird who wrote (128)	8/4/2005 7:21:48 PM
From: software salesperson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26251

Rarebird, Tim, Well, since I brought it up and people seem to be interested, let me reconstruct Hume’s statement of the arguments. The argument from design, which is a cosmological argument, goes: 1) we see structure in human artifacts, e.g. watch 2) we see more complicated structure in the universe 3) if the effects are the same, so must be the causes 4) therefore, since artifacts are made by intelligent Man, the universe was made by a super-intelligent being This argument is a type of anthropomorphism. The idea of perfection comes in later in the counterarguments. The main ontological argument goes: 1) whatever exists must have a cause of its existence 2) thus, there is either an infinite series of causes or there is a cause which is the cause of itself 3) there can’t be an infinite series of causes 4) therefore, there is a cause which is the cause of itself Of course, this argument, even if it were acceptable, does not establish anything about the nature of “the cause of itself”, e.g. omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. So, one can see that the ontological argument and the cosmological argument are two entirely distinct types of argument. One other point: Hume took the empiricist assumptions of his predecessors, Locke and Berkeley, to their logical conclusion. As such, he was the spur to Kant “I openly confess my recollection of David Hume was the very thing which many years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave my investigations in the field of speculative philosophy a quite new direction.”- - Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena and, for those who do not know, Kant changed the entire direction of philosophical thinking in metaphysics, epistemology and morality. sales