The principle of sufficient reason is just not unconditional. As per earlier posts, you can find examples to which the principle does not apply, so you have to rule those out before applying it. — jorndoe
The magic trick of self-deception which you are pulling off here, is that you are attempting to apply the PSR to a generality, a universal, "existence", when the PSR clearly only applies to particular things. When you make such categorical errors you should expect any manner of paradoxical results. "Existence" is what existing things have. If we attempt to apply the PSR to an attribute or property, which has been separated from the object of which it is a property, we should have no expectations that the PSR would apply, because the separated property exists only in abstraction, not as a thing which the PSR would apply to.The principle of sufficient reason cannot apply to existence (everything) without circularity, since otherwise the deduced reason would automatically not exist — which is contradictory. — jorndoe
Wouldn't it be cool to see news headlines with "Theologians make new ground-breaking discovery" — Jorndoe
You're looking for an example where we know that something didn't have a starting point, somehow, in contradistinction to what you're taking to be examples where we know particles had a starting point. But we don't actually know this, especially in a knowledge by acquaintance sense, in either case. Rather, as I mentioned, it's a factor of assumptions that we're making, ways that we're interpreting the data.Any arbitrary particle could be taken as an example of something with or without a starting point. — Wayfarer
Where we don't already have an explanation, supernatural explanations should have long ago been eliminated by a "We don't know what the natural explanation is yet, but we're working on it" response.: the naive argument that the physical sciences have somehow eliminated the need to a 'supernatural' explanation, is not actually borne out by the current state of science, — Wayfarer
Where we don't already have an explanation, supernatural explanations should have long ago been eliminated by a "We don't know what the natural explanation is yet, but we're working on it" response. — Terrapin Station
I always took God on a leap of faith. — Marty
What would, theoretically, count as supernatural? Something non-physical? Then, given Hempel's dilemma, what counts as non-physical? — Michael
In such matters, maybe more samples will only introduce more errors. The scientific statistical method may very well not be adequate to deal with such matters which depend upon the concepts and beliefs which people already have or don't have - unless of course we're interested to find out what, empirically, the mean of a population is (although this could change in the future - so I don't think it would be a very scientific endeavour). If we're interested in the truth however - then we may need to be careful in the selection of people we consider for the experiment. They should be those people for whom their own behaviour is somewhat transparent - who have followed the train of their minds, and understand what makes them form a belief or not. Otherwise, we'll get a lot of people who are confused and unaware of the ways in which their own minds function - that's not good - that's a source of error. And trying to study the way beliefs form in a confused person's mind is not very helpful - the process becomes intractable, since even the person is not aware of many influencing factors.We need more samples for the experiment. — jorndoe
Funny video thanks! :D Yes definitely a few things are needed to form and sustain a belief. One is experience, another is reason. I have developed a more extensive framework but will not state it here, although the nuts and bolts are that experience will go through the filter of reason. So to believe in God a few things must happen. First you must clarify for yourself what God means. Second you must have an experience of God. Third your reason must confirm that your experience of God is indeed of God. Then your belief in God will form. So what role does the will have in here? Well the will can intervene either at the first level - meaning that you are simply not interested in God, and therefore have no interest in ever clarifying the concept - or at the third level (or both) - meaning that despite having an experience of God, you will ignore it, refuse to see it, and in other words not be open to it. If you don't have a clear concept of God, your reason will never be able to identify a certain experience as being "of God". If your will is not open to the possibility of God - then your reason will choose another way to interpret your experience in order to avoid God. If you truly want to be honest with yourself, then you must be open to possibility.I found that honest belief in the elephants didn't come about as a matter of exercising "free will", sort of justifying that sometimes at least "seeing is believing".
On the other hand, I also believe there's snow on the peak of Mount Everest, and that there are exoplanets, though less "seeing", and more thinking, is involved.
"There was a pink elephant on the street"; SP. Kiwiyum; 1m:58s youtube; Jul 2012
Can anyone give a non-hypothetical example of something supernatural, magic, witchcraft, ...? — JornDoe
Maybe some undiscovered reptile left over from the Cretaceous period will indeed be found in Loch Ness or the Congo Republic; or we will find artifacts of an advanced, non-human species elsewhere in the solar system. At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study:
[...]
(3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation
[...]
I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong. — Carl Sagan
(3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation — Carl Sagan
I see. I thought I addressed this, but I myself wouldn't defend the Kalam cosmological argument all the way through. I was addressing the classic cosmological argument (basically the argument from contingency), and explaining how divine attributes follow. But to answer your question it's the exact reversal: because it is necessary for their to be a first cause, then it follows there must be a first cause, and that since it cannot be temporal, it is unique. There is no special pleading involved, imho.I thought the task was to show a (unique) first cause, like Craig, and then (perhaps) that the first cause is necessary?
— jorndoe
— jorndoe
Stevenson always only claimed to present evidence that 'suggests the possibility of re-birth having taken place'. I think it does that. — Wayfarer
This illustrates my point very well between you two. One is open to believe, and thus believes. The other isn't open to believe, and therefore doesn't believe. You could present as much evidence as you want to jorndoe on this subject - unless one is honestly open to believe, they will always find reasons not to believe - as such matters are not amenable to the kind of studies jorndoe is open to - double blind studies, etc. The sad part is that evidence is rejected when it doesn't fit a method. But it is precisely the method which ought to be rejected when it has reached its limits and cannot investigate further.Fire up a new thread. Present your thinking on (justification of) it. Add a vote. (Isn't that what the site is for anyways?) — jorndoe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.