Theoretical Philosophy » Update one god further objection » 3/04/2016 12:10 am |
@AKG
You have to remember that the God of Classical Theism is not a being among beings. Rather, the God of Classical Theism is Being Itself, Pure Actuality, Absolutely Simple. Those other "gods" (or I call them super-beings) Zeus, Chukwu, Horus, etc. metaphysically change or are metaphysically composite and are really like us humans just in greater degree ( like more powerful or knowing). Recall, Thomistic Philosophical Theology takes a via negativa (What God is not) approach. Usually, amateur New atheists say this sort of stuff.
Chit-Chat » Being John Malkovich » 3/01/2016 1:16 am |
Hello guys,
Has anyone seen the movie "Being John Malkovich"? If so, then when the "real" John Malkovich enters the secret tunnel he ends up at a restaurant. Everybody has the face of John Malkovich and they all say "Malkovich" as their way of communication. Assuming that the movie shows the implications of Cartesian Dualism, what does that scene mean?
Chit-Chat » Very Sad news » 2/29/2016 6:21 pm |
May he rest in peace.
Theoretical Philosophy » Anselm Monologion » 2/24/2016 12:47 pm |
Interesting, in one of my philosophy classes the instructor showed us Descartes' Ontological argument. Her formulation of the argument was horrendous and her formulation included the premise "Everything [including ideas] has a cause." Now I'm not a Cartesian, but I don't think Descartes was that stupid.
Theoretical Philosophy » Laws of Logic and outside the universe. » 2/15/2016 1:35 pm |
@AKG
My response: What the heck!? I think you should stick with people who understand what they are talking about.
Chit-Chat » Books » 2/12/2016 1:18 am |
Also, has anybody read Herman Philipse's "God in the Age of Science"? If so, how is it? Is the book high quality and intellectually serious like Mackie's "Miracle of Theism"?
Theoretical Philosophy » Laws of Logic and outside the universe. » 2/11/2016 1:36 am |
@AKG
I think that atheist is begging the question because he is assuming that we can only know of what is empirically verifiable (It sounds like rehashed verificationism). He or she has to give an argument of why is that true.
Chit-Chat » Help Mysterious Brony » 1/02/2016 9:31 pm |
AKG, you remind me a little of myself when I became a Brony. I ended up listening to This Day Aria and I listened to the song about five times. I realized that I liked a show for little girls and that made me feel odd. At first, I was very secretive about my liking of the show and tried to get rid of it. (You may or may not believe me, but its the truth) Nevertheless, I couldn't, so I embraced it. Eventually, I told my family and close friends about it and they are fine with it. In your case, if you don't want to continue liking My Little Pony then don't think about it. I suggest to focus on other matters or hobbies. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to school, just don't tell anybody. Good luck and Happy New Year!
Theoretical Philosophy » Connectionism » 12/31/2015 11:47 pm |
@iwpoe
What about the James Ross argument that Dr. Feser uses most of the time? Does that argument have any force against such view?
Theoretical Philosophy » Ontological Argument » 12/23/2015 5:04 pm |
@DanielCC
Yes, besides the parody objection, philosophers use the famous Kantian objection against the OA. However, I have some questions regarding the Kantian objection. What does it mean when someone says "Existence is not a property"? Also, I remember Yujin talks about this objection in the article you sent me. I quote "For in order to defend it, one has to prove not only that the ontological argument presupposes that existence is a predicate, which itself is controversial, but also that existence is indeed not a predicate, which is even more controversial, independently of the debate on the ontological argument." He goes on to say, "Thus in order to refute the ontological argument by relying on the Kantian objection, one needs first to solve the very difficult problem regarding the nature of existence."