Philosophy Now Forum

Take, for example the example (of Lennox) that if y exists, then x should be its cause. What about X? Who or what caused it? We would go back to another cause and another ad infinitum. So monotheists would conveniently think of an uncaused cause or the unmoved mover or the prime mover. Is this logi...

Personally, I read the book as an extended but reluctant defense of theism. Yes, that is well-put. I think that's what's angered so many of his Atheist peers...he's provided really important reasons why Naturalism cannot deal with things like reason, values and consciousness in a non-reductive way....

The problem of induction is a general problem for all inductive inference; it isn't specific to ID. If the problem of induction is an argument against ID, it's also an argument against all science. Indeed it is. Science itself is probabilistic only, and does not yield certitude. We have certitude o...

Isn't there a natural law someplace against absurdity? Well, if there isn't, there should be. :) Oh, I agree with Lennox's estimation of the probabilities. My argument, though, is not that probability favours some version of the cosmos I wish to advance myself, but rather that it *does not* help pr...

Thedoc and uwot: Perhaps I can answer you both at once. What puzzles me is that if Immanuel Can, why does he need you as a conduit? More to the point; what is the special access you have that justifies you presenting your views under that heading? "Need"? The Supreme Being "need"...

Agreed.

Sleep well.

Thankyou, that pretty much sums up the problems with the first part of my question, but seems to ignore the second. Yes the existing established religions claim that their way is the only way, but I am asking is there anyone who can accept that all religions have some aspect of the truth but not al...

I've got to admit I was very surprised it took people such long and circuitous efforts to discover what "Immanuel Can" means. When I first picked the name, I decided it was a suitable way to mark myself from the very first moment both as a philosopher and as a Christian. I thought this wou...

Hello, uwot: I'm not sure which of my previous posts was on majoramblues's mind, so I'm not quite sure how to proceed. But catch me under the "Immanuel Can" header and I'll do my best to answer anything you may wish to ask. I'm thinking I don't want to hijack this particular thread by maki...

Nevertheless, Henry, I think it does take courage to stare into the implications of such a view. Good on you.

Dear Thedoc: I understand the question, however, I also see a problem: it's really only from the position of never having studied world traditions deeply that their reconcilability seems plausible. Any detailed study quickly raises such profound problems for that view that it cannot be rationally su...

Thank you, QMan: your thoughts on this are very relevant. On the subject of the multiverse hypothesis, I posted a response to Joel Marks' piece on that subject under the current "Articles in Philosophy Now" section, header "Nonsense On Stilts". Last time I looked, no one had comm...

In order to try and answer this question I think we need to get rid of the mistake Dawkins and Lennox tend to make in their discussions. That is to say, the both talk in terms of 'flows' of information, where as quantum explanations talks of packets or chunks of information. The advantage of a quan...

Religion has truth as it's source, and what we observe as apparent diverse religious doctrines, are actually interpretations of the inherent actuality. It's within us all to find and know the truth about how, why and what, it just has many ways of becoming manifested in thought. You articulate here...

I think I've had enough of this for now.

Okay. No hard feelings. But I'm around, and if you want to pick up the conversation I'm still open to it.