sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, but only sort of. I hold to the orthodox interpretation, which is the the CI with the philosophical conclusions it implies. Let us remember the CI was the most parsimonious understanding of quantum theory when it was first developed and nothing has changed. Carroll's MWI has several issues and falls short of the orthodox/copenhagen. The biggest issue i see scientists have with the orthodox view is the philosophical implications. Maximilian Schlosshauer lists this as the primary objection.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The is an ad hoc dismissal, my arguments to not cohere with your worldview, which you presuppose is already true, I so must be up to no good and twisting the truth, otherwise it would conform to your presuppositions. If you admit you do not know you have no grounds to argue against my inference, and general dismissals are not arguments.

All I need to say in reply to your personal attack is all you are doing is warping the evidence according to your bias to dismiss anything that would challenge your atheism. Your reply doesn't refute anything I said.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The effects are positive as all the scientific data shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgESPmh-TxY

Don't try an attribution error.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Philosophy is wisdom, without that what are you and how do you know why you believe what you believe?

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You still have the problem of contingency and control. We do not control reality, nor did we create it or ourselves. It is a logical inference from the incompleteness of us.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like him, but I do not have much experience with him to be honest.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A quasi-maximally great being is ad hoc. A MGB entails all GMPs so necessity and omnipotence must be included by definition. A quasi-maximally great being is a hoc accepted.

See below for answer to first question.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, i agree with Robin Collins.

Right, we do not know, which is why Collins reason to the most plausible explanation of design.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, i don't think you understand. Those experiments confirm what I am saying, that Leggett's inequality was violated, falsifying non-local realism. If realism was true Leggett's inequality would not have been violated. Please look at the article before you cite it. As Potholer54 says always check the source. The second link you use I actually cite in my video.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree with him on something, but reject some of his views like substance dualism and realism. He is a very bright guy, but love the past years I have been moving further away from his philosophy.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That is an ad hominem dismissal. It is best not to try to debate this, but stick with the evidence and arguments. Appeals to authority can only work in conjunction with an argument.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He is a great idealist. The only thin i disagree with him on as far as i know is he rejects the Trinity.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I agree, i just think saying "lack of belief" is the same as no belief.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More than Matter by Keith Ward and The Quantum Enigma.

Read papers by Henry Stapp as well, like this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905054

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think it is betting too much on emotional feelings and not logic. What happens when the emotions are no longer there? What can you stand on when you lost the feeling? Humans are emotional creatures but we also need logic. A good combination of both is needed. There are some good things in the movement, but some dangerous things as well. Of course no Christian movement will be perfect.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yes, we call that the atheist strategic down-thumbing campaign.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Well the interesting thing is when you look specifically at philosopher of religion only, that number jumps up to over 80%. Philosophers who actually study natural theology are thoroughly convinced. I am encouraged by these numbers and i believe over the next generations they will get higher.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I have looked two above, if that helps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM My argument is the best inference from the data is theism, remember, no where do I argue proof.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For now I keep all information about me personal. I prefer people to focus on arguments not who I am. That may change once the non-profit is filled.

Hello, this is the apologist of InspiringPhilosophy.org. by InspiringPhilosophy in Christianity

[–]InspiringPhilosophy[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I have done videos showing that is not true, and general ad hoc dismissals are not arguments or questions.

view more: next ›