God, and how do people still think they can get away with the argument from first cause?
Writing about an entry you don't have permission to view
What is wrong with philosophy? Despite all our efforts we see an argument that has been refuted again and again reconstituted by people who want to use it to convince us to accept all kinds of preposterous and down-right iliberal policies. Are we absolutely useless at educating the world of our results?
Grrrr.
Sorry, but I really shouldn't be baited in this way while i'm doing philosophy work. He (god i mean) was asking for a good kick-in. Are you listening Nick?
Robert O'Toole
06 Nov 2004 07:14
| 
Comments (7)
| 
Report a problem
7 comments by 2 or more people
[Skip to the latest comment]I think the difference is that when someone comes up with a "proof" of god (or whatever), there are no shortage of the faithful who are eager to shout it from the rooftops (or the pulpits). When such arguments are comprehensively refuted, these people are somewhat less eager to share.
06 Nov 2004, 08:35
I'm not a religious man myself, but I envy those who are. It must be nice to believe in a God. I'm stuck with Nietzsche and Dionysus. If dodgy arguments from the first cause help you to do that, then maybe that's not such a bad thing…
06 Nov 2004, 09:41
If you prepare a concise, scientifically written doc file of the inadiquacies in this argument and send it to me, I will send it to the author for you and he will produce a response- I'm 100% sure that from university students it will be nothing he hasn't heard before.
mark.higgins@warwick.ac.uk
06 Nov 2004, 10:05
100% sure eh, extraordinary arrogance. But, somewhat typical of religious nuts the world over. The difference between philosophers and religious nuts is all about having ears to hear. I don't think it would be that much of an effort to dispute any of this viral religious claptrap for any student, in fact it's not all that difficult for my 10 year old daughter to do. But you have to have ears to hear.The trouble is having the energy to care enough about this moribund and dead ideaology to refute it. I can think of about 23 million other things I'd rather be doing with my time (sodomising prince charles, having an abortion, spitting on nuns, wearing women's underwear, blaspheming in the bath, deflowering virgins, being unnatural with goats, being just a few).
06 Nov 2004, 11:13
I found a site with a proof of the Argument form First Cause
link
and a site arguing that it is invalid
link
For interested people's edumification.
06 Nov 2004, 12:04
Robert O'Toole
OK, but not all of the religious nuts are dumb enough to still bother with the argument from first cause. Now they are on the offensive, using their dubious grasp of modern thought to attack targets more deeply at the heart of modern thinking. Have a look at this well funded and almost plausible site against Darwinism
Anyhow, Darren seems to having more fun on a Friday night than me. I just wish I had enough energy left to deflower virgins. I'm very jealous of this!
06 Nov 2004, 12:19
Robert O'Toole
Question 1: do I need to wear a white coat and goggles to scientifically write something?
Question 2: why does putting it in a Word document make any difference? Perhaps this is a Microsoft conspiracy after all.
Question 3: student? i suppose it's the case that all real philosophers are always students. And i'm implying that the 'strict professor' of the Fatherland was no philosopher.
06 Nov 2004, 12:19
Add a comment
You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.