Saturday, July 7, 2012
Philosophy and quantum mechanics
I think philosophy is not respected nearly as much as it should be in popular culture and in academia. One area of physics which is widely thought to have nothing to do with philosophy, quantum mechanics, is extremely involved in it. Philosophers are involved mostly in interpreting quantum mechanics, and thus they debate about the Copenhagen, the Bohmian, the Many World's among many other interpretations. This requires philosophers to have a great deal of understanding of physics. To learn more about quantum mechanics and philosophies role in it check these articles out; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics
De dicto and De re
For anyone interested in the philosophy of language, metaphysics or modal logic, these two concepts are very important to know. De dicto and de re represent two different possible interpretations of various sentences. For example, take the statement; "she wants to go to the tallest building in the world." The de dicto interpretation of this would be that this woman has a general desire to see the tallest building in the world. The de re interpretation is that there is a specific building this woman has in mind. Thus de dicto interpretations revolve around the statement while de re interpretations revolve around the subject specifically.
This can perhaps be more clearly seen when de dicto and de re is employed in modal logic. Take the claim that, "the number of chemical elements is necessarily greater than 100." The de dicto interpretation would be that necessarily connects chemical elements to any number greater than 100, so that there is no possible world in which the number of chemical elements is less than 100. The de re interpretation, however, looks past the statement into the subject chemical elements. On the de re interpretation, the number of chemical elements is equal to 117, and thus, 117 is necessarily greater than 100.
This can perhaps be more clearly seen when de dicto and de re is employed in modal logic. Take the claim that, "the number of chemical elements is necessarily greater than 100." The de dicto interpretation would be that necessarily connects chemical elements to any number greater than 100, so that there is no possible world in which the number of chemical elements is less than 100. The de re interpretation, however, looks past the statement into the subject chemical elements. On the de re interpretation, the number of chemical elements is equal to 117, and thus, 117 is necessarily greater than 100.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
nope, nothin, nadda, zip
Ever try to imagine nothingness? Well whatever you have imagined it to be, it is not that. For whatever we imagine, we imagine it as something, and thus to imagine nothing, is to imagine it as something, which it is not. Nothing is not even dark, for to ascribe darkness to nothing is to ascribe an attribute to it, but nothing has not attributes, and so it can't be dark.
Human language has not even the words to describe nothing, for as soon as we describe a word to it, we describe it as something. But nothing is not something. Because of this linguistic limitation, paradoxes result. We cannot describe nothing in words, but only in the quiet contemplation of our minds, and perhaps not even then can we grasp the mystery that is nothing.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Fundy atheists on Kalam;
"Yes it really has been debunked. It's a logical fallacy. It begs the question because the only possible eternally existing thing is God. Even if you ignore that, if everything needs a cause what caused the first cause? If the first cause wasn't caused, why is it exempt from the rules? Even if you concede an uncaused first cause, what says that cause must be God? Even if you concede that much, you still haven't shown a personal god. It's utter BS."
I get responses like this from atheists and theists alike online. Its very disappointing because it shows just how little people know of how logic and argumentation work. This atheist asserts that Kalam states that everything which exists needs a cause, which it doesn't. Kalam actually claims that whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. But even so, if God needs a cause, it doesn't follow that God would not be a good explanation of the universe, you don't have to explain the explanation in order for it to be a good explanation.
This atheist claims that Kalam begs the question because the only possibly eternally existing thing is God. What? Kalam doesn't claim that. Even if it did that doesn't mean it is begging the question. To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion, in the support of one of its premises. Then he goes on to say that Kalam doesn't show that the cause is God, which is somewhat true, but William Lane Craig does give an extension of arguments in support of the cause being God in many vids on youtube and in his written works (one of these does argue for a personal being as well). The fact that this atheist is completely unaware of this, only shows he hasn't done his homework.
So basically in a small paragraph this fundy atheist has managed to commit at least 4 major fallacies in reasoning. The truly sad thing is that this comment got multiple up-votes on youtube.
I get responses like this from atheists and theists alike online. Its very disappointing because it shows just how little people know of how logic and argumentation work. This atheist asserts that Kalam states that everything which exists needs a cause, which it doesn't. Kalam actually claims that whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. But even so, if God needs a cause, it doesn't follow that God would not be a good explanation of the universe, you don't have to explain the explanation in order for it to be a good explanation.
This atheist claims that Kalam begs the question because the only possibly eternally existing thing is God. What? Kalam doesn't claim that. Even if it did that doesn't mean it is begging the question. To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion, in the support of one of its premises. Then he goes on to say that Kalam doesn't show that the cause is God, which is somewhat true, but William Lane Craig does give an extension of arguments in support of the cause being God in many vids on youtube and in his written works (one of these does argue for a personal being as well). The fact that this atheist is completely unaware of this, only shows he hasn't done his homework.
So basically in a small paragraph this fundy atheist has managed to commit at least 4 major fallacies in reasoning. The truly sad thing is that this comment got multiple up-votes on youtube.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Dr. Colin Patterson admitted doubts on evolution?
Creationist claim;
http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils
Evolutionist rebuttle;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils
Evolutionist rebuttle;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
Friday, June 15, 2012
A possible world which is not feasible for God to create... whaaaaa?
In part of Plantinga's free will defense he argues that it is not possible for God to actualize a world in which all free creatures freely choose to follow God. But he also argues that it is possible for such a world to exist. One might fairly ask, why then can God not actualize it?
The answer is deceptively simple. If God were to actualize, and thus guarentee such a world said creatures would not be free. Thus the incoherence is not in the world itself but in it being actualized. God cannot do the logically impossible. Thus we have a world which is can exist, but cannot be forcibly actualized. And thus we have a world which is not feasible for God to create.
Pretty trippy right?
The answer is deceptively simple. If God were to actualize, and thus guarentee such a world said creatures would not be free. Thus the incoherence is not in the world itself but in it being actualized. God cannot do the logically impossible. Thus we have a world which is can exist, but cannot be forcibly actualized. And thus we have a world which is not feasible for God to create.
Pretty trippy right?
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Does Deuteronomy 25:11-12 command mutilation and promote sexism?
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 states; "if two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall show no pity."
Surely to anyone who has read this passage, it must seem absolutely bizarre, not to mention cruel. The wife of a man gets her hand cut off for defending him? How could someone possibly believe this nonsense? Well I've probably said this before and will explain it more in another post, but virtually no Christian views the Old Testament Mosaic law as a law meant for a perfect society. Rather the Mosaic law was meant to improve upon a society and culture with a great many issues, in a specific time period and in a specific cultural setting.
But even so, how does this law improve anyone's culture? It promotes absurd punishments and suggests a misogynistic view of women. Paul Copan in his book "Is God a Moral Monster?" I think answers this question fairly well. He points out that the Hebrew word used here for hand is kaph, a word which refers to any round or concave object in Hebrew language. This hebrew word, however, is never used to describe a hand as a whole, but only the palm of a hand. But it would be odd for the text to say that one must cut off the palm of a woman's hand. If the text was commanding that Israelites cut off the hand of a woman when she commits such an act, it would have made much more sense to use the word yad in place of kaph. A more plausible reading of this passage is that cutting off a woman's kaph really refers to shaving her groin. This was a practice commonly used to humiliate women in places such as Babylon and Sumer. What's more kaph is often used to refer to a woman's groin in the OT such as Song of Songs 5:5. In addition the word translated cut is not the standard word used to cut something off (piel) but has a milder connotation (qal). (Copan, p 121,122).
To grab a man's genitals especially in an effort to harm him, was considered a shameful act, and could prevent the man from ever having children. Thus this is a case of humiliation for humiliation. If one was going to cause humiliation, one would suffer humiliation. This certainly isn't ideal, but it is certainly an improvement to other ancient Near Eastern cultures, whose law codes would have endorsed mutilation. Such as the Middle Assyrian Law that if a woman damaged a man's testicle her finger was to be cut off, and if she damaged both testicles, her eyes were to be gouged out. (see the Cod of the Assyrians I.8.)
Surely to anyone who has read this passage, it must seem absolutely bizarre, not to mention cruel. The wife of a man gets her hand cut off for defending him? How could someone possibly believe this nonsense? Well I've probably said this before and will explain it more in another post, but virtually no Christian views the Old Testament Mosaic law as a law meant for a perfect society. Rather the Mosaic law was meant to improve upon a society and culture with a great many issues, in a specific time period and in a specific cultural setting.
But even so, how does this law improve anyone's culture? It promotes absurd punishments and suggests a misogynistic view of women. Paul Copan in his book "Is God a Moral Monster?" I think answers this question fairly well. He points out that the Hebrew word used here for hand is kaph, a word which refers to any round or concave object in Hebrew language. This hebrew word, however, is never used to describe a hand as a whole, but only the palm of a hand. But it would be odd for the text to say that one must cut off the palm of a woman's hand. If the text was commanding that Israelites cut off the hand of a woman when she commits such an act, it would have made much more sense to use the word yad in place of kaph. A more plausible reading of this passage is that cutting off a woman's kaph really refers to shaving her groin. This was a practice commonly used to humiliate women in places such as Babylon and Sumer. What's more kaph is often used to refer to a woman's groin in the OT such as Song of Songs 5:5. In addition the word translated cut is not the standard word used to cut something off (piel) but has a milder connotation (qal). (Copan, p 121,122).
To grab a man's genitals especially in an effort to harm him, was considered a shameful act, and could prevent the man from ever having children. Thus this is a case of humiliation for humiliation. If one was going to cause humiliation, one would suffer humiliation. This certainly isn't ideal, but it is certainly an improvement to other ancient Near Eastern cultures, whose law codes would have endorsed mutilation. Such as the Middle Assyrian Law that if a woman damaged a man's testicle her finger was to be cut off, and if she damaged both testicles, her eyes were to be gouged out. (see the Cod of the Assyrians I.8.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)