IntenseDebate - MitchLeBlanc

16 years ago @ Urban Philosophy :: Yo... - The Anthropic Argument... · 0 replies · +1 points

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?

16 years ago @ Urban Philosophy :: Yo... - The Anthropic Argument... · 1 reply · +1 points

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.

16 years ago @ Urban Philosophy :: Yo... - Ryft on "A Possible Di... · 0 replies · +1 points

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!

16 years ago @ Urban Philosophy :: Yo... - Objective Morality and... · 0 replies · +1 points

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.

16 years ago @ Urban Philosophy :: Yo... - A Review of The "New" ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Cheers! It is a welcome submission.

16 years ago @ Urban Philosophy :: Yo... - Zao on the Transcenden... · 0 replies · +1 points

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?

16 years ago @ Urban Philosophy :: Yo... - Zao on the Transcenden... · 0 replies · +1 points

I know, right?

16 years ago @ Urban Philosophy :: Yo... - Zao on the Transcenden... · 2 replies · +1 points

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.

16 years ago @ Urban Philosophy :: Yo... - Zao on the Transcenden... · 0 replies · +1 points

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!

16 years ago @ Urban Philosophy :: Yo... - A Conversion · 1 reply · +1 points

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.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with MitchLeBlanc

People I'm following

MitchLeBlanc