Log file opened at: 3/16/03 3:59:59 PM
*** JenniferWood (java@65.103.68.999) has
joined channel #metaphysics_online
borrowdale: Hi.
JenniferWo: Hi Professor - thank you for the chat
time. Can we discuss Norman Malcolm?
borrowdale: Sure.
borrowdale: He has a modern restatement of the
ontological argument, asserting that if God's
existence is possible, then it must be actual.
JenniferWo: Which objection addresses his
argument best?
borrowdale: The one which says that God's
existence isn't even possible.
JenniferWo: And that objection is Anslem???
borrowdale: If the concept of God is like "square
circle" and contradictory, then the argument never
gets off the ground, because it's impossible for a
contradictory concept to be represented in reality.
borrowdale: No, that's an objection TO Anslem.
borrowdale: The objection is that God can't really
be conceived of at all--that the greatest
conceivable being is not even in the mind.
borrowdale: You just THINK you can concieve of
the greatest conceivable being, but you really
can't.
JenniferWo: And if I can't conceive the greatest
being then it doesn't exist right?
borrowdale: Right.
JenniferWo: Got it! Now on to Hume and his
criticism of the Casual argument.
borrowdale: On p. 164 Palmer mentions this as an
objection to Hume's criticism that you can't go
from concept to reality. But you can use this
argument against Anslem and Malcolm as well if
you can show that the concept of God is
contradictory.
borrowdale: Hume says that you can't know every
event has a cause. He also says that an infinite
series of causes involves no contradiction.
JenniferWo: The casual argument confused me
with infinite regresses...can you explain it a little?
*** Fruitbat (Fruitbat@XXXXX.cyber-dyne.com)
has joined channel #metaphysics_online
Fruitbat: hello?
borrowdale: There are two possibilities for how
the world got here...
borrowdale: Hi Fruitbat.
Fruitbat: hi
Fruitbat gathers her notes and handouts
and brain
borrowdale: One is that whatever created what
exists now was created by something before it
going back to a first cause.
borrowdale: The other is that something created
the things in the world we see now, which was
created by something before it, which was created
by something before it going back to infinity.
borrowdale: That second is the "infinite regress of
causes"
borrowdale: The idea that there was no "first
cause", that you just have an infinite series of
causes with each thing being created by
something before it and no starting point.
Fruitbat: is that second one the one that Sagan
agreed with?
borrowdale: Hume's point is that the notion of a
definite beginning, middle and end is just the
human mind trying to impose a finite order on
infinity. The idea of causes going back to infinite
goes against our need to see order and patterns
but there's no contradiction in the concpet.
borrowdale: Right, Sagan's oscillating universe
theory is an example of an infinite series of
causes.
borrowdale: Though you could have a different
example. Aquinas imagined that possibility
without understanding modern physics.
Fruitbat: so the Cause could be God or it could
just be the physics of the universe
borrowdale: It could be God (defined as the First
Cause) or an infinite series of causes.
Fruitbat: would that be Aquinas' 3rd way?
borrowdale: Aquinas says that since an infinite
series of causes is impossible, there must be a
First Cause.
borrowdale: The Second Way
borrowdale: The argument from efficient cause is
the one Palmer discusses in the text.
Fruitbat: oh, ok
borrowdale: Which is the one we're talking about,
a.k.a. the causal argument.
Fruitbat is looking at her handouts
borrowdale: The other one, detailed in the
handout is the contingency argument.
borrowdale: Both the causal and contingency
arguments are forms of the cosmological
argument.
JenniferWo: So Hume's criticism of the Casual
Argument is that causes don't regress to infinity?
Fruitbat blushes for having jumped right in.
Sorry.
borrowdale: No, his criticism is that the COULD
regress to infinity.
borrowdale: And if causes COULD regress to
infinity, they don't have to terminate in a First
Cause.
JenniferWo: Okay, I understand but I feel lost here
somehow - guess I should review the text more!
borrowdale: Aquinas' argument relies on there
being two possibilities--a first cause, or no first
cause and causes going back to infinity. He
argues that since causes can't go back to infinity,
the only other possibility is a First Cause (God).
borrowdale: If causes could regress to infinity,
there would by definition be no FIRST cause.
borrowdale: You can look over your notes or text
for a minute. Need to get some more coffee. Back
in a jiffy.
borrowdale: OK, I'm back.
JenniferWo: I got confused in the counter-
analogies that Hume proposes to the Design
argument.
borrowdale: OK, Paley says that the universe is
like a watch, like a machine.
borrowdale: He says that since machines have
designers, the universe has to have a designer.
borrowdale: But Hume says that you could just as
well compare the universe to a vegetable.
JenniferWo: Or you could compare the universe to
an animal...
borrowdale: Vegetables (or plants) have order--
they have working parts, function in certain ways--
they grow, gather nutrients, move towards the
light, and so on.
borrowdale: But vegetables don't have designers.
borrowdale: They come from other vegetables--
they get their complexity and functions from other
vegetables which produced the seed they grew
from.
borrowdale: So Hume says that rather than
intelligence producing the vegetables, it's the
process of "germination", that is, the dropping of
seeds.
borrowdale: Dropping and growing of seeds, that
is.
JenniferWo: Hume says that the universe
suggests about its Maker that the design of the
universe could be explained without God right?
borrowdale: No, that's a separate issue.
borrowdale: Hume says that IF you assume the
universe DOES have a designer, then he is either
malevolent or incompetant.
Fruitbat: because the universe is cruel and
doesn't always work very well?
borrowdale: Hume compares the world to a badly
constructed house which is drafty and structurally
unsound.
borrowdale: Right, there is disease, drought,
flooding, earthquake, extremes of hot and
cold...the world is not a very hospitable place.
borrowdale: So either God designed the world to
be so hostile because he is malevolent (evil) and
wants us to suffer, or he bungled the job because
he didnt know what he was doing.
borrowdale: Palmer has a cartoon of the "not so
intelligent watchmaker" on p. 173 which supports
this point.
JenniferWo: Can we move on to the Problem of
Evil?
borrowdale: Hm, that cartoon doesn't seem to be
tied into Hume's criticisms, but it's his idea. Either
God didn't know what he's doing or he wants us to
suffer. This is realy a statement of the problem of
evil.
Fruitbat: yeah, like if god/watchmaker doesn't
know what he's doing and/or wants suffering, then
he's not all-powerful or all-good.
borrowdale: Good, fruitbat.
borrowdale: Did you have any specific questions
about the problem of evil, Jennifer?
Fruitbat pictures an evil watchmaker in his
workshop, rubbing his hands together saying
"Mwahahaha, this watch will grab the wearer's
wrist with pain and never let go. Maybe I'll put a
little poison in it, too."
JenniferWo: I guess I don't understand what the
objections to the Free Will Theodicy would be.
borrowdale: One of the chief objections is that it
doesn't address natural evil.
borrowdale: Human beings aren't responsible for
all disease, earthquakes, flooding and so on.
borrowdale: Those things are built into the world
by it's designer.
Fruitbat: we could have free will to choose
whether to give our money to this charity or that
one or to build a school, but not have the choice
of evil like blowing it all on gambling
JenniferWo: Just like an objection to the Spiritual
Development thoedicy is that God creates the
challenges that make us develop courage?
borrowdale: Think of the food chain. If God
designed the world, he designed it "red in tooth
and claw" to run on suffering and death. Think of
all the thousands of animals having their bellies
torn apart while they writhe in agony, being eaten
alive, all the mice being tortured by cats...human
beings have nothing to do with that.
*Fruitbat* thanks :P
borrowdale: No, that's a defense of the Spiritual
Devleopment theodicy.
JenniferWo: Okay, so now I am really confused.
What would an objection be?
borrowdale: The idea is that without danger, there
could be no courage, without temptation there
could be no moral goodness.
borrowdale: An objection would be why didn't
God create us as "ready made saints". If he
wanted us to be courageous, he could have
created us that way. If he wanted us to have
strong moral characters, he could have created us
with them.
Fruitbat: and that things like poverty and disease
help a person build courage and tenacity and all?
borrowdale: yeah, so why doesn't he just create
people with courage, tenacity, patience, faith and
so on.
borrowdale: Building human character is this way
seems sort of a clunky way to do things if you're
an omnipotent being. Also, suffering seems to
create as much bitterness, immorality and atheism
as inner strength, moral character and faith.
borrowdale: The majority of people who suffer
trauma, especially in chidhood end up scarred
and psychologically damanged, not stronger,
because of the experiences.
JenniferWo: I guess I am still having trouble
figuring out what the objections to the Human
Ignorance Theodicy is...I've been thinking about it
but I must not be on the right track.
borrowdale: That's a good question. I really didnt
address it in the handout.
borrowdale: One objection is that the amount of
suffering and unchecked evil in the world requires
some sort of explanation.
borrowdale: Consider an analogy with Charles
Manson.
Fruitbat: like, god should have told us why he did
things this way?
borrowdale: Suppose I say that Charlie really is
Jesus Christ reincarnated and the most moral
man who ever lived. Even though he was
responsible for killiing half a dozen innocent
people, including an 8 month pregnant woman,
Charlie has his reasons.
borrowdale: You would rightly say that no amount
of evidence could ever convince you that there
was a justified reason for killing six innocent
people by having them hacked to death.
Fruitbat: and we wouldn't say, oh, ok, then
charlie's off the hook, since he had good reasons
borrowdale: Yet God could have prevented that
and every other heinous act done and the earth
and stands idly by, doing nothing.
JenniferWo: I just noticed it is after 5 p.m. are you
okay to contine Professor?
borrowdale: Sure, I can go a few more minutes.
JenniferWo: In an email you talked about a fourth
problem of evil - is that going to be on the test or
just what is on the study guide?
borrowdale: You mean a fourth theodicy, about
needing to have evil as a contrast to good?
JenniferWo: Yes, sorry for not being more clear.
borrowdale: Yes, I think I'll put that on there just to
see if people are reading and paying attention to
the WebBoard.
borrowdale: :-)
Fruitbat: :>
borrowdale: Several people have mentioned the
idea in the various discussion threads besides
your question and my response.
JenniferWo: The other thing I caught was the part
in the handouts about Casual and contingency
arguments both being part of the cosmological
argument which is true correct?
borrowdale: That's correct.
borrowdale: They are different versions of the
Cosmological Argument.
borrowdale: I might also ask which of Aquinas'
Five Ways are versions of the Cosmological
Argument.
JenniferWo: Aren't all of Aquinas' Five Ways
versions just different versions of the
cosmological argument?
Fruitbat: no, 4 is ontological; 5 is teleological
Fruitbat: according to the handout :>
Fruitbat: 1 we don't have to worry about
JenniferWo: Thank you Fruitbat - I just re-read the
handout and caught that.
borrowdale: Just ways 1-3.
borrowdale: The arguments from motion, efficient
cause and possibility and necessity.
borrowdale: You got it, Fruitbat.
Fruitbat: I dont' have any other questions...
JenniferWo: I don't either. Thank you for your
time...
borrowdale: How about you, Jennifer?
borrowdale: OK, good luck.
borrowdale: You can always email me if
somethign else comes up.
Fruitbat: thanks, prof! and thanks, Jennifer, for
having questions that I didn't realize I needed
clarification on ;)
JenniferWo: Thanks - I'll probably take you up on
that! Bye
Fruitbat: bye
Log file closed at: 3/16/03 5:16:39 PM