For all who know and love Pachelbel's Greatest Hit, that means all who read this blog of course.
Next year in Jerusalem
2 weeks ago
Random thoughts on the blue highways.
You never know what you will find on the blue highways. Particularly when the choice at an intersection is controlled by the roll of a die. About the only rule is that highway onramps don't count as an intersection. You don't even have to roll the die. If one road looks interesting, go for it.
For all who know and love Pachelbel's Greatest Hit, that means all who read this blog of course.
...we perceive the world causally because it is in our nature (material make up and our experience of consciousness) to perceive it causally.It may be time to take this part of our nature out from under the rug and see if it is still useful. The post hoc, propter hoc fallacy has probably caused more trouble in science, religion, and life than any other mistake we commonly make. Something happens and the first thing we ask is “Why?” Then we grab the first plausible why we can find and go back into our stupor thinking that we have the answer. When rocks, and spears were social mediators this probably made sense. But in a modern world where nuanced responses to stimuli are necessary the simple causal answer may not even be correct let alone useful. I have learned that jumping to conclusions is normally jumping into hot water, and that rational consideration is normally the best solution to any important decision. And that the initial causal response is usually incorrect.
Kwinters
Reason and rationality dictate that any contingent thing must (by necessity) have a cause for its being. Therefore in order for anything to exist, there must be something which does exist that requires no cause--and is the cause of everything that is by nature contingent. That is why we say that this non-contingent something has a super-nature or super-being. It is 'super' (beyond) because-unlike us---it does not necessitate a cause for its existence or being.
CaliberCadillac
Not just ... but ESP, are included in the 'wishes come true' category.
Blü
Can you please explain to me how it is possible to validate any empirical observation without employing such metaphysical axioms?Empirical observations are validated by consistency with other empirical observations which may be of a similar or relevant nature. If one for example makes the empirical observation that young children in learning how to separate self from other will frequently be unable to distinguish between living others, inanimate others such as toy animals, and mythical others like Santa Claus, or the Wizard of Oz. One can validate this observation by observing the child interacting with living others that hesh may not have met previously, a new inanimate toy, and a new myth like God. The fact that God is as real in the mind of the child as the living stranger validates the observation that until a certain age children have a concept of self and other, but the other may not be differentiated.
A is A, and A is not non-A.
Can you please explain to me how that purely metaphysical axiom is somehow untrue?
moral anemia comes from anything else than righteousness
This is the Turn of a Plausible Phrase
That thickened the Erudite Verbal Haze
Cloaking Constant K
That saved the Summary
Based on the Mummery
Hiding the Flaw
That lay in the Theory Jack Built.
If both Hitler and Mother Teresa cease to exist at death, and all the people they helped or harmed cease to exist at death, then is there ultimately any difference between them (Hitler and Mother Teresa)?
What is an atheist's motivation for doing good, indeed how do you define good given your belief that everything ends at death?
Don't handicap your children by making their lives too easy.
How?
Still, I think there's more to it [Why there is less divorce among atheists.] More than the lack of religion to not fight about.
Yes, it does matter [when Paul lived], because people that knew Jesus were still alive, and therefore would have attempted to correct him or refute him, if his info about Jesus was incorrect.
El Cid
There is only one reason to be an atheist, and we all agree: There is no rational reason to believe in God.