1 | Introductions » New Forum Hacked? » 10/16/2019 1:47 pm |
- Ouros
- Replies: 6
-
It does seems so. I'm not sure where to contact admins personnally, so I can only hope they will find a solution to this problem.
Actually, we can still view the forum, but not from the home page. I prefer not to connect right now, but at least the threads are still there. If the hack can't be fixed, we can still hope that they can be copied and archieved somewhere else. (Even if there wasn't as much content as here, there's still value in it.)
Sadly, it seems that this forum was more robust than the new one.
| Chit-Chat » Should we update to new forum software? » 1/09/2019 3:36 pm |
- Ouros
- Replies: 66
-
He asked to be banned? Like, litterally? What even was the point?
| Chit-Chat » Should we update to new forum software? » 1/09/2019 3:13 pm |
- Ouros
- Replies: 66
-
Jeremy Taylor wrote:I believe only two members have been banned from the forum (apart from spammers and bots), and they both deserved it.
Is AKG one of them? I'm curious, because from what I've read of his posts, he didn't seem odious or "out-law-of-the-web". Did something serious happened?
Btw, I hope that this forum won't be deleted. Some posts were very informative, and it would be sad to lost them. Couldn't all the posts be transfer one to the other?
| Theoretical Philosophy » Intellectualist freedom » 12/26/2018 4:02 am |
- Ouros
- Replies: 8
-
There's some equivocation going on here. It's not because you can only choose the good that it means that there's only one choice: there can be many equal goods in some situation.
Also, I don't think that (3) is a contradiction; for the intellectualist, the possibility to do otherwise is more an accidental feature of freedom than an essential one. You can say that it's problematic, but it's not a contradiction
| Theoretical Philosophy » How do you feel about WLC Kalam Argument? » 12/25/2018 3:45 pm |
- Ouros
- Replies: 13
-
My problem is that I'm not sure what it would imply for science if it were valid: should we rule out scientific models of eternal universe?
| Chit-Chat » Christmas Music » 12/25/2018 3:43 pm |
- Ouros
- Replies: 1
-
I've go nothing to share right now, but I wanted to thank you 'cause I find the first one great and I didn't know it!
| Theoretical Philosophy » Non-personal necessary being » 12/25/2018 3:41 pm |
- Ouros
- Replies: 8
-
DanielCC wrote:
No, it's close to a contradiction in the strictly analytical sense - by definition the presence of axiological perfection is a good rather than a bad thing.
It's not simply the presence of a axiological perfection alone, but the simultaneous presence of it and imperfection(s).
In fact, I think it raises two interestings questions:
1) How to keep believing in God when we feels sometime that some events are truly absurd and evil?
2) How does God create imperfect beings? How does evil came in the world strictly speaking?
I don't think those are stupid questions.
(Obviously, very good answers were given to both. Leslie's account of (2) is pretty good in fact. "Not a perfect world, but worthy of being thought about.")
If anyone else think that there's good account of impersonnal necessary being, feel free to share ofc.
| Theoretical Philosophy » Non-personal necessary being » 12/20/2018 4:58 pm |
- Ouros
- Replies: 8
-
@DanielCC
Too strong in what sense? Libertarian free will I suppose?
I'm incline to think that libertarian free will should be able to give us contrastive explanation.
I got the impression that some atheist would say that axiological perfection would make the world worst, because it would mean imperfection stand alongside perfection. I would say that it isn't a brilliant answer, too. :-)
That said, there's some paper by Yujin Nagasawa on what we could call "The practical problem of evil", which also touch atheist;
It could be relevant with the "We can be grateful" in a "Rundlesque Optimisalist World".
| Theoretical Philosophy » Non-personal necessary being » 12/19/2018 3:15 pm |
- Ouros
- Replies: 8
-
@DanielCC
But your first proposition would lack some contrastive explanation isn't it? Why THIS world rather than another?
It would be some half-brute explanation. What would be better for the atheist/pantheist though: modal collapse or semi-brute fact?
Something very interesting anyway is be the axiological status of God: would a world without God be better or not? I know that some atheist say that they would like that God exist. (I think Michael Tooley is like that.) But what about the angry ones? Like the New Atheists?
@119
Spinoza himself? He seems pretty accessible.
| Chit-Chat » Besides English, what languages do you speak? » 12/19/2018 3:02 pm |
- Ouros
- Replies: 11
-
Wait, you mean this one: ?
If so, it's a small planet.