Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: To books555

  1. #1
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223

    To books555

    since you always hide away from these questions I want you to answere them in this thread. No more bull****ing from anyone, just answere these 2 questions and show you realy do know what you are talking about.

    1. Do what hooker request and first present humes argument here and then show how its self defeating, if its so obvious like you imply then it should be a piece of cake for you.

    2. Show any historical evidence of the exodus and noahs flood(and no the bibel isnt considered a reliable history book so dont make referenced to it without backing it upp with other historical records). Since you all the time claims the bibel is such a reliable document then this should also be a piece of cake.

  2. #2
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Can I help?? I wont post till I can. All hume comments and whats wrong with them.

  3. #3
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    Can I help?? I wont post till I can. All hume comments and whats wrong with them.

    sure go ahead

  4. #4
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    sure go ahead
    Not sure if this is what you were lookin for.. ?


    david hume defined miracles as being violations of the laws of nature.

    natural laws assume that no other natural or supernatural factors are interfering with the operation that the law describes.

    example: its a law of nature that oxygen and potassium combust when they are combined. but I have oxygen and potassium in my body and yet im not bursting into flames. does that mean its a miracle and im violating the laws of nature? no, because the law merely states what happens under idealized conditions, assuming no other factors are interfering. in this case however, there are othe factors interfering with the combustion, and so it doesnt take place. thats not a violation of the law. J.P. Moreland (philosopher who wrote 'Christianity and the Nature of Science' used an illustration of the law of gravity, which says that if you drop an object, it will fall to the earth. But he said, if an apple falls from a tree and you reach out to catch it before it hits the ground, you're not violating or negating the law of gravity, you are merely intervening. Catching the apple doesnt overturn the law of gravity or require the formulation of a new law. its merely the intervention of a person with free will who overrides the natural causes operative in that particular circumstance. and that essecntially is what God does when he causes a miracl to occur.

  5. #5
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Just an FYI...even hume said "But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."

  6. #6
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    realy I dont know much about philosophie. So I dont even know what books and hooker are talking about then they are refeering to humes argument.

    I just want books to finaly adress this question and show his point and I want to se how hooker responds to it.

    Im getting sic of books claiming its self defeating over and over and over again but everytime hooker asks him to prove it books just says something along the lines of "its obvious" "or you dont understand **** if you dont understand how its selfdefeating blablabla" and then leaves the thread or pretends hooker never said it, never proving his point in anyway. Now I want him to back upp his claims once and for all.

  7. #7
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    im not big on philosophers either. When they start talking that stuff, i just let em go. I got the above from a book i read... makes sense. the apple scenario. (at least to me)

  8. #8
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    im not big on philosophers either. When they start talking that stuff, i just let em go. I got the above from a book i read... makes sense. the apple scenario. (at least to me)

    same with me. It try to stay away from things Im totaly clueless about. But this time I couldnt let it go since I realy realy want to se this issue become settled. Its getting ridicilous. In every other thread books drags out the designer argument and then hooker points towards humes argument and then books discredits the argument without explaining its faults.
    I realy want to se this settled so it wont "pollute" any more threads with mindless bickering and I hope to learn a bit about humes in the process

  9. #9
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    since you always hide away from these questions I want you to answere them in this thread. No more bull****ing from anyone, just answere these 2 questions and show you realy do know what you are talking about.

    1. Do what hooker request and first present humes argument here and then show how its self defeating, if its so obvious like you imply then it should be a piece of cake for you.

    2. Show any historical evidence of the exodus and noahs flood(and no the bibel isnt considered a reliable history book so dont make referenced to it without backing it upp with other historical records). Since you all the time claims the bibel is such a reliable document then this should also be a piece of cake.

    I dont hide Johan. I am lazy and slow typing.

  10. #10
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Sorry guys, I have to put my foot down some where.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Actually, as far as Hume being self defeating (?) I believe Books was going to explain Hume's theory of Causation and his Scepticism.

  12. #12
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    Not sure if this is what you were lookin for.. ?


    david hume defined miracles as being violations of the laws of nature.

    natural laws assume that no other natural or supernatural factors are interfering with the operation that the law describes.

    example: its a law of nature that oxygen and potassium combust when they are combined. but I have oxygen and potassium in my body and yet im not bursting into flames. does that mean its a miracle and im violating the laws of nature? no, because the law merely states what happens under idealized conditions, assuming no other factors are interfering. in this case however, there are othe factors interfering with the combustion, and so it doesnt take place. thats not a violation of the law. J.P. Moreland (philosopher who wrote 'Christianity and the Nature of Science' used an illustration of the law of gravity, which says that if you drop an object, it will fall to the earth. But he said, if an apple falls from a tree and you reach out to catch it before it hits the ground, you're not violating or negating the law of gravity, you are merely intervening. Catching the apple doesnt overturn the law of gravity or require the formulation of a new law. its merely the intervention of a person with free will who overrides the natural causes operative in that particular circumstance. and that essecntially is what God does when he causes a miracl to occur.
    Do you like J.P. Max.

  13. #13
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Actually, as far as Hume being self defeating (?) I believe Books was going to explain Hume's theory of Causation and his Scepticism.

    How do you not understand that?

  14. #14
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    I am not giving a philosophy class on Hume on the internet. Once again, I will go through the arguements that show his arguements Fallacious.

  15. #15
    3Vandoo's Avatar
    3Vandoo is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Bandit County
    Posts
    4,249
    the 4B's

    bla bla bla boring

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Lets all be honest here:

    We all know that it takes Books555 an inordinately long time to "explain" or "define" his arguments because he is looking up stuff on the Internet, and trying to pass it off as his own.

    Thats why, although I have asked several times (and now Johan has also), for him to explain (in detail) Hume's arguments, and how Hume is self-defeating, it has taken him several days, and he still has not provided us with an explanation of Hume's Skepticism, or how it is self defeating.

    I, on the other hand, can rattle off these arguments and definitions within seconds of reading them, due to that Degree in philosophy which many people have claimed as useless.

  17. #17
    zOaib's Avatar
    zOaib is offline VET
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Kingdom Of Heaven !
    Posts
    2,739
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Lets all be honest here:

    We all know that it takes Books555 an inordinately long time to "explain" or "define" his arguments because he is looking up stuff on the Internet, and trying to pass it off as his own.

    Thats why, although I have asked several times (and now Johan has also), for him to explain (in detail) Hume's arguments, and how Hume is self-defeating, it has taken him several days, and he still has not provided us with an explanation of Hume's Skepticism, or how it is self defeating.

    I, on the other hand, can rattle off these arguments and definitions within seconds of reading them, due to that Degree in philosophy which many people have claimed as useless.
    u know its funny thats the same impression i got aswell !

  18. #18
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by ZOAIB
    u know its funny thats the same impression i got aswell !


    Me too

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    In every other thread books drags out the designer argument and then hooker points towards humes argument and then books discredits the argument without explaining its faults.
    :
    Funny, isn't it? Discrediting something w/o explaining it's faults?


    It'll take me awhile, but if there's enough interest, I will make a thread explaining the most common version of the Design Argument (Aquinas' Version) and then Hume's rebuttal. In detail (but easy to read)...and fully referenced.

    Do you guys care? It'll be a decent amount of work, which I'm more than willing to do...but only if there's interest.

  20. #20
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Funny, isn't it? Discrediting something w/o explaining it's faults?


    It'll take me awhile, but if there's enough interest, I will make a thread explaining the most common version of the Design Argument (Aquinas' Version) and then Hume's rebuttal. In detail (but easy to read)...and fully referenced.

    Do you guys care? It'll be a decent amount of work, which I'm more than willing to do...but only if there's interest.
    I am very very interested to say the least, so whenever you have time bro Im sure most here would like to read it

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Ok...no worries...I'll have it up soon.

    I'm going to post exact parts of each argument, then simple explanations.

  22. #22
    BigBoi83's Avatar
    BigBoi83 is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Funny, isn't it? Discrediting something w/o explaining it's faults?


    It'll take me awhile, but if there's enough interest, I will make a thread explaining the most common version of the Design Argument (Aquinas' Version) and then Hume's rebuttal. In detail (but easy to read)...and fully referenced.

    Do you guys care? It'll be a decent amount of work, which I'm more than willing to do...but only if there's interest.
    yeah i would love to read it too hooker

  23. #23
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Funny, isn't it? Discrediting something w/o explaining it's faults?


    It'll take me awhile, but if there's enough interest, I will make a thread explaining the most common version of the Design Argument (Aquinas' Version) and then Hume's rebuttal. In detail (but easy to read)...and fully referenced.

    Do you guys care? It'll be a decent amount of work, which I'm more than willing to do...but only if there's interest.

    And then I will show why Humes scepticism ends up in contradiction, which will leave the Kalam Cosmological arguement valid

  24. #24
    talltanman's Avatar
    talltanman is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Funny, isn't it? Discrediting something w/o explaining it's faults?


    It'll take me awhile, but if there's enough interest, I will make a thread explaining the most common version of the Design Argument (Aquinas' Version) and then Hume's rebuttal. In detail (but easy to read)...and fully referenced.

    Do you guys care? It'll be a decent amount of work, which I'm more than willing to do...but only if there's interest.


    Yes, there is definite interest from me. I would love to join in on some of these debates. However my grandfather told me something a long time ago that I try to live by. "You can keep your mouth shut & let everyone assume that you are a dumb ass, or you can open your mouth & remove all doubt."
    I have come to realize as an adult that this is not an original quote from him, but definetly wods to live by.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    And then
    Originally posted by Books555I will show why Humes scepticism ends up in contradiction, which will leave the Kalam Cosmological arguement valid
    Ha ha...given 3 weeks to research it, and time to see what people who actually know something about philosophy have to say about it.

    Kalam's version still leads to Deism. Sorry to disappoint you. Before you muddy up my upcoming thread on the Design argument, why don't you show (in this thread) how it fails to end in Deism? Answer Johan's question which started this thread. How about that? Just answer Johan's questions. No more B.S. Just do it in this thread...in your next post.

    Not some B.S. post like "I'll answer this when I have more time..." then a post 2 seconds later saying "It's so clear...how can you not see...."

    Explain Hume's argument, in detail. Show how it's self defeating, explaining the logical contradictions in it, or whatever you are claiming..... And include the works you get everything from.


    No more BS...lets have your next post actually address the original questions in this thread, which was directed to you alone.

    Answer, or STFU.

  26. #26
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Ya, c'mon books . . . let's hear your explanation . . .
    -Tock

  27. #27
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    And then

    Ha ha...given 3 weeks to research it, and time to see what people who actually know something about philosophy have to say about it.

    Kalam's version still leads to Deism. Sorry to disappoint you. Before you muddy up my upcoming thread on the Design argument, why don't you show (in this thread) how it fails to end in Deism? Answer Johan's question which started this thread. How about that? Just answer Johan's questions. No more B.S. Just do it in this thread...in your next post.

    Not some B.S. post like "I'll answer this when I have more time..." then a post 2 seconds later saying "It's so clear...how can you not see...."

    Explain Hume's argument, in detail. Show how it's self defeating, explaining the logical contradictions in it, or whatever you are claiming..... And include the works you get everything from.


    No more BS...lets have your next post actually address the original questions in this thread, which was directed to you alone.

    Answer, or STFU.
    Robert C. Koons
    Associate Professor of Philosophy
    University of Texas
    Austin, TX 78712
    koons@phil.utexas.edu

    The rehabilitation of causation and modal realism in recent analytic philosophy have made possible the revival of the argument from contingency to the existence of a necessary first cause. Recent work in defeasible or nonmonotonic logic means that this argument can be cast in such a way that it does not presuppose that every contingent situation, without exception, has a cause. Instead, the burden of proof is shifted to the skeptic, who must produce positive reasons for thinking that the cosmos is an exception to the defeasible law of causality. The most promising line of rebuttal open to the skeptic contradicts a plausible account of the nature of causal priority, namely, that the actuality of a token causes is necessitated by the actuality of its token effect. Several independent lines of argument in support of this account are outlined.

    The cosmological argument for God's existence has a long history, but perhaps the most enduring version of it has been the argument from contingency. This is the version that Frederick Copleston pressed upon Bertrand Russell in their debate about God's existence in 1948. In 1997 ("A New Look at the Cosmological Argument, American Philosophical Quarterly 34:193-212), I noted that all three of Russell's principal objections to the argument (viz., the unreality of modality, the unreality of causation, and the unreality of the world as a totality) have fared poorly in recent analytic philosophy. This is especially clear in the case of causation. Far from withering away (as Russell anticipated), the notions of cause and effect have never held a more central position. Causality is absolutely central to recent philosophical work in semantics, the philosophy of mind and intentionality, epistemology, and philosophy of science.

    Im not done.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    You posted a review of the Teleological (Design) arrument which neither presents the argument, nor Hume's or Russell's objections to it. The review presents no arguments, simply declares a sort of victory for the Design Argument....

    Pathetic.

    You didn't address Johan's original questions. At all.

    Don't bother replying...I have work to do outlining the Design argument, and it's different forms and rebuttals. Don't bother posting in my design argument thread either, as you are wasting everyone's time. Start your own thread on it if you wish...but nobody will really bother with yours, I can imagine. You've shown yourself to be fairly useless in this nexus.

  29. #29
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    In the book i just got done reading gives some examples of these debates, from what i can tell, humes and christians "battles" usually end up with both having good points and really no winner.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    The problem isn't that Hume wins, per se, but rather that his objections (which are valid) generally cripple the design argument into being an argument for Deism.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    The problem isn't that Hume wins, per se, but rather that his objections (which are valid) generally cripple the design argument into being an argument for Deism.

  32. #32
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Lets all be honest here:

    We all know that it takes Books555 an inordinately long time to "explain" or "define" his arguments because he is looking up stuff on the Internet, and trying to pass it off as his own.
    Anyone heard of the philosopher Al-Ghazali?

    I dont know much about Hume, I studied him some when I took a semester of Philosophy in a American university.

    Here is an article I found.

    http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/jour...1/primr-ma.htm

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    NO...I haven't. Generally, there are 2 well known Arabic Philosophers (Avicenna and...some other dude...I forget his name); they aren't known for original thought though, just for preserving some Aristotelian and Platonic ideas.

    The part of that essay you linked to "Hume on..." wasn't Hume responding to the dude the article was about...it's Hume's thoughts juxtaposed on the issues raised by Al Ghazali.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •