Philosophy Now Forum

"infinite regress of causation"

So it's a cylical universe extending back infinitely, or, it's a supranatural entity standing outside the order of things.

Neither seems particularly plausible so I'll hold out for another option.

#

"testimonial evidence"

I'm not impressed by anecdotes, especially from folks I don't know, and haven't met.

#

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" (which presupposes the corollary, "Nothing comes from nothing.")

Hell if I know...

#

"If God is the ground of all that exists (the usual definition of "God") "he" is absolutely not something measurable."

Mebbe so, but if he wants my attention he'll have to do more, be more, than a 'conclusion'.

#

"Since God is the ground of everything that exists, all of said existence is the evidence."

A conclusion arrived at cuz there seems to be (for some) no better explanation for why reality exists. Well and good for those folks, but my head isn't built that way. As I say: I'll hold out for another option.

A little thing before I go look for water bugs...

Joe comes to me carrying a cardboard box. Joe sez the box holds a ham sandwich. Without actually looking in the box, I can accept Joe's claim: I know ham sandwiches exist (I've constructed them, eaten them). It costs me nuthin' to accept his claim.

Change the event a bit...

Joe comes to me carrying a cardboard box. Joe sez the box holds a living, singing and dancing, ham sandwich. Sure as shit, before I accept his claim, I wanna see the sandwich sing and dance and I wanna examine that sandwich for micro-robotics, a speaker, and a processor chip.

Joe's claim seems to fall outside the way the world works. To accept that claim means a vast and deep reordering of my understanding of the world (an understanding that has served me well for a very long time). Before I toss out my grounding, I want to *ahem* 'put my fingers in the holes in his hands and put my hand into the hole in his side'.

Now: I'm off...water bugs beware.

henry quirk wrote: Now: I'm off...water bugs beware.

Just one question, what are "water bugs", and what do you do with them once you find them?

thedoc wrote:

henry quirk wrote: Now: I'm off...water bugs beware.

Just one question, what are "water bugs", and what do you do with them once you find them?

He puts them in Joe's ham sandwich, of course.

Dalek Prime wrote:

thedoc wrote:

henry quirk wrote: Now: I'm off...water bugs beware.

Just one question, what are "water bugs", and what do you do with them once you find them?

He puts them in Joe's ham sandwich, of course.

Yum!

I'll have mine with lots of Colman's Mustard.

And there lies the fate of every man who tries to scam Henry with dancing, singing ham sandwiches.

thedoc wrote:I'll have mine with lots of Colman's Mustard.

Tell Henry. I'm a lousy cook.

henry quirk wrote:I'll hold out for another option.

If it's not unfair to characterize most of what you've said as ultimately resting on a sort "unconvinced-ness," then there's little else for me to do but to respect that. Where things really hit the fan is when, rather than saying "I'm unconvinced," someone says something like "you're clearly wrong" or "that's impossible" or "that is less plausible than this." I think there's a lot of room for "this is what I believe and I'm sticking to it," which is what I take you to be saying (more or less). And I completely respect that.

henry quirk wrote:A little thing before I go look for water bugs...

Joe comes to me carrying a cardboard box. Joe sez the box holds a ham sandwich. Without actually looking in the box, I can accept Joe's claim: I know ham sandwiches exist (I've constructed them, eaten them). It costs me nuthin' to accept his claim.

Change the event a bit...

Joe comes to me carrying a cardboard box. Joe sez the box holds a living, singing and dancing, ham sandwich. Sure as shit, before I accept his claim, I wanna see the sandwich sing and dance and I wanna examine that sandwich for micro-robotics, a speaker, and a processor chip.

Joe's claim seems to fall outside the way the world works. To accept that claim means a vast and deep reordering of my understanding of the world (an understanding that has served me well for a very long time). Before I toss out my grounding, I want to *ahem* 'put my fingers in the holes in his hands and put my hand into the hole in his side'.

Now: I'm off...water bugs beware.

That's an excellent analogy. Where it breaks down with respect to God is that God's not some upgraded version of something we already know to exist. God is "ganz andere"—wholly other. In this respect, it would be akin to Joe showing you a box and claiming a hrhshndhurbdi was in it.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

henry quirk wrote:I'll hold out for another option.

If it's not unfair to characterize most of what you've said as ultimately resting on a sort "unconvinced-ness," then there's little else for me to do but to respect that. Where things really hit the fan is when, rather than saying "I'm unconvinced," someone says something like "you're clearly wrong" or "that's impossible" or "that is less plausible than this." I think there's a lot of room for "this is what I believe and I'm sticking to it," which is what I take you to be saying (more or less). And I completely respect that.

It's almost as if Henry's from Missouri, the "Show Me" state, but I know better. I still want to know what they are going to do with all the "Water bugs" they find.

A travelling ventriloquist on the road in between jobs decided to practice his craft before his next show. He stopped at a farmhouse and approached the farmer who lived there.

"Hello there, Mr. Farmer, I was just passing by and I was wondering if I might speak to your dog." The farmer replied, "Well, you know, dogs don't talk." The ventriloquist said, "You'd be surprised what a dog might tell you. Can I speak with him?"

The farmer, eyeing the ventriloquist suspiciously, called his dog. "Hi there, Mr. dog," said the ventriloquist. "How does the farmer treat you?" To which the dog replied, "Oh, he's great! He throws a stick for me, scratches my belly, and I just love him!!" Needless to say, the farmer was dumbfounded.

Wanting to see if he could fool the farmer again, the ventriloquist asked if he could speak with the farmer's horse. "Well, you know, horses don't talk." Again the ventriloquist said, "You'd be surprised what a horse might tell you."

So the farmer brought out his horse. "Say, Mr. Horse, how does the farmer treat you?" asked the ventriloquist.

The horse then replied, "Oh, I think he's great. He feeds me oats, he puts a blanket over me at night, and I just love him!" Again the farmer was amazed.

Wanting to try his luck a third time, the ventriloquist said, "Mr. Farmer, would you like to hear what the sheep has to say about you?"

"Well," said the farmer uncomfortably, "Sheep lie, ya' know."

A drunk man is in a bar with his dog. He has no money for more drinks so he says to the bartender if my dog will play the piano and sing will you give me a drink?

Bartender says sure, If you can get your dog to sing and play the piano I will be happy to give you a drink.
So the dog goes to the piano and plays yankee doodle dandy and sings it as well.

The bartender is amazed and gives the guy a drink.

A few minutes later the drunk says I also have a frog in my pocket, if my dog plays the piano and the frog sings an opera song will you give me a whole bottle ?

The bartender says, sure this I gotta see, a frog that sings opera.

So the guy puts the frog on top of the piano and the dog plays an opera song and in a loud voice the frog sings an opera song.
The bartender is amazed and gives the drunk a whole bottle of whiskey.

A few minutes later a man passes by the drunk and offers the drunk a half million dollars for the frog. The drunk accepts the money and gives the guy the frog.

The bartender waits for the buyer to leave and comes to the drunk and says: "you are a fool, you could have made millions off that frog".

The drunk says, dont worry, my dog is a ventriloquist.

thedoc wrote:I still want to know what they are going to do with all the "Water bugs" they find.

Make that two of us!

henry quirk wrote:So it's a cylical universe extending back infinitely, or, it's a supranatural entity standing outside the order of things.

Neither seems particularly plausible so I'll hold out for another option.

It seems to me that if you're holding out for a third option, Henry, then you're going to be holding out for a hell of a long time. This strikes me as the most obvious binary option imaginable. Either the universe has existed forever or it hasn't and I'm buggered if I can see how you can squeeze a third option out of this proposition. Furthermore if you prefer to believe that it hasn't existed forever then you automatically accept that it came into existence as a consequence of some transcendent cause, whether you choose to define such a cause or not. I'm happy to settle for Occam economy and nail my colours to the mast of the eternal universe option because transcendent causes lie beyond the scope of either scientific or philosophical enquiry. Once we venture into such questions we are no longer doing philosophy and if we're no longer doing philosophy we may as well all pack up our philosophical crap and go fishing.