Philosophy aspires to something more than utility. — Wayfarer

:up:

Utility is base metal, what we're looking for is gold. — The Fat Alchemist

I believe the Thin Alchemist had an identical view.

I believe the Thin Alchemist had an identical view — Wayfarer

:lol:

Can we not use a variation of Euthyphro's dilemma against Plantinga's insightful argument? Is our logic reliable because God wills it OR does God will it because logic is reliable? Either logic is arbitrary or God is redundant. Tough call theist pals.

I wonder how the concepts of lumen naturale (reason alone), lumen fidei (revelation), and lumen gratiae (divinely assisted reason) are related to Plantinga's argument. He probably could use one of these three ways of ensuring the the reliability of reason.

Philosophy aspires to something more than utility. — Wayfarer

Indeed, you can find whatever you want in philosophy, it's a hot mess.

Suppose that omniscience entails R (as is no doubt true). It follows from this that R will be necessarily true of God. But everything entails necessary truths, so everything willentail R. — GodlessGirl

What is meant by "but everything entails necessary truths" here? I don't think that omniscience implies that "everything" is a necessary truth; if there is contingency for instance (and I am happy to shrug and suppose that it looks like there is), then contingent truths still wouldn't be necessary just because God omnisciently knows them. However, I feel as though I might be misinterpreting what you said. Could you clarify?

if God is omnipotent, then he is capable of ensuring the reliability of his cognitive faculties. And, as a rational being, he would no doubt seek to do this. — GodlessGirl

I agree, and I think this is an important thing to make explicit.

So, when confronted with the claim that P(R/D*) is low, God could happily grant it but hold that he has no reason to accept D* he has no reason to think that he did not intervene to ensure that R holds for himself (since he is a rational being and is omnipotent). — GodlessGirl

I'm familiar with Plantinga's argument (though the iteration I'm accustomed to gives the supposition that our cognitive faculties are geared towards the truth as K, I think R makes more sense); but I'm not sure what D* represents in your argument and don't see it defined. Same thing with O. What are D* and O?

I'm familiar with Plantinga's argument (though the iteration I'm accustomed to gives the supposition that our cognitive faculties are geared towards the truth as K, I think R makes more sense); but I'm not sure what D* represents in your argument and don't see it defined. Same thing with O. What are D* and O? — Astro Cat

:lol: The OP is like a jigsaw puzzle with crucial pieces missing. The puzzle can't be solved. We could, however, construct pieces that would fit the other pieces, but that requires work. Admit it, you're lazy.

I'll admit I'm lazy any day of the week :lol:

I'll admit I'm lazy any day of the week — Astro Cat

:rofl:

Philosophy aspires to something more than utility. — Wayfarer

Philosophy is a field of study. We aspire. And pragmatists aspire to utility. (and if you read between the lines of other types of philosophers, even they come down to being able to do things. Even if they focus on Being, they need a philosophy that gets them to whatever being they're after. And since I have my pragmatist hat on today - sometimes other hats find their way to my head - I'd say that all knowledge is a doing, but it gets reified into that noun for convenience's not ontology's sake.

:chin:

Philosophy aspires to something more than utility. — Wayfarer

:chin: That which is without purpose fades away (re vermiform appendix, which'll be gone in another thousand or so generations). Uselessness is a ticket out of this utility-oriented world. Let's be of zero utility and get the hell outta here! :grin: