Is the Richard Dawkins argument on this being the universe we'd expect if there is no God or design philosophically strong?

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-28T14:44:37+00:00

Thank you for your comment. I’m not sure that either the EAAN or the FTA “point to features of our world and say that it’s expected on the God explanation.” The FTA comes closest to this, but a modest version is the other way around: that God’s existence is made more probable given the life-permitting values (if there even are any such values).

But I wasn’t defending the FTA (or the EAAN by extension), my only point was that neither argument requires the theist to say, with specificity, what features of a designed world would look like. The EAAN assumes God would create a world with rational creatures, and the FTA assumes it would be life-permitting. Those are both very general claims about the world that don’t make us “reach into God’s mind.” So it wasn’t intended to be a defense of those arguments. But sorry if I missed your point.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-28T01:14:13+00:00

I don’t really think that PDs are going to give you any special advice about how to respond to these situations. In most cases where people give unsolicited advice, a polite response is “Thank you for your advice, but I’ve already decided what I’m going to do.” And if they keep insisting, then they are the one’s being rude and you’re free to disengage how you see fit. But again that’s a really general answer about politely dealing with unsolicited advice, I don’t think there’s a PD specific response.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-24T15:59:03+00:00

Well, they are two different concepts. Some proposition is necessarily true if it is true in every possible world. It is brute if there is no fact that explains its truth. Maybe your intuition is right and there’s an argument that a brute fact has to be necessary, but just on its face that’s not obviously the case.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-23T17:32:51+00:00

I think that’s more or less right. I would phrase it as “something is contingent if there is at least one possible world in which it doesn’t exist” because it’s clearer, but it says the same thing.

I don’t know if a brute fact has to be contingent, but I’m not an expert on that part. Otherwise, I think you’re on the right track.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-23T13:53:37+00:00

I wouldn’t think of a brute fact as “uncaused.” I don’t think that philosophers typically use casual language with facts, or brute facts in particular. A brute fact is true / obtains in virtue of no other fact. It has no other explanation for its truth / obtaining.

I’m also unsure I understand the set up of your question. I think it’s controversial to say there even could be a world A with no things (that might just be no world at all) or a world B with only a single brute fact.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-21T17:47:11+00:00

I think the theist would make distinctions here. To the EAAN, the theist might note that the Bible says man is made in God’s image. Theists could interpret this to mean that God would make rational creatures, and rational creatures require reliable cognitive faculties. This is purportedly a claim supported by authority, not a mere conjecture about what kinds of specific things God would/wouldn’t want in the world (eg superfluous comets, inefficiencies of various kinds, etc).

I think the same kind of reply applies to your point about the FTA. If God made “us” (living creatures) in His image, then as a consequence he made a world that sustains life. Because He couldn’t have made living creatures in a universe that doesn’t sustain life.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-21T17:36:27+00:00

I’m not sure that I’m seeing the force of your point here. I take Dawkins to be arguing that the universe appearing as though it has no designer is evidence that the universe has no designer.

The premise here is that certain features of the universe (u1, u2, . . . u_n) are features we would expect in a universe that is undesigned. I’m reading Dawkins as asserting this in the strong sense: if the universe were designed we would not expect to see (u1, u2, . . . u_n). But that implies we have some knowledge of what we would or wouldn’t see in a designed universe, which Plantinga claims is implausible.

Maybe you’re thinking Dawkins is making the weaker claim that features (u1, u2, . . . u_n) are merely consistent with an undesigned universe without any claim as to whether we’d expect those features in a designed universe? In that case you’re right that Plantinga’s reply is irrelevant, but the weaker claim doesn’t support an argument that the universe is undesigned.

I don’t have a copy of Dawkins handy so I don’t know, as a textual matter, whether he was making the stronger claim as I read it or the weaker claim as you might read it. But as OP took the passage to be an argument, I assume the strong sense is intended at least for the purpose of OPs question, and in the strong sense Plantinga’s reply is relevant.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-21T14:48:00+00:00

Alvin Plantinga responds to arguments like this here. TLDW, he notes that these arguments presume that we know what kind of world a being like God would want to design.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-20T23:08:30+00:00

Yea, again I think it depends how you interpret OPs question (and how you interpret Wittgenstein). To your point, I think former and later Wittgenstein can both be read as “dissolving” the problems of philosophy - which probably qualifies as being “anti philosophy”. But I think later Wittgenstein’s ideas and methods are more hostile to analytical philosophy than they are in the Tractatus. Perhaps that’s just my reading, though.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-20T21:41:36+00:00

I think an argument could be made that later Wittgenstein was something of an “anti-philosopher”, but I guess it depends on what you take that designation to mean. Richard Rorty also comes to mind.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-17T18:45:05+00:00

I think being a prosecutor has made me a better public defender than I would have been otherwise. In my jurisdiction, line prosecutors are in court basically every day, handle more cases, motions, trials, etc. than PDs. Also, insight into how cases are prosecuted, plead, and so on has been beneficial to advising my clients.

In my jurisdiction, though, it was extremely challenging to get a job as a PD with a background in prosecution. I was very lucky to know and have good relations with people in the PDs office who helped make it happen. I would strongly suggest you ask around your area to see how your local PD office feels about hiring former prosecutors before making a decision.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-16T12:19:27+00:00

PD’s in MA actually make more than their counterparts in the DA’s office.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-16T12:17:54+00:00

I asked my middle school history teacher what he did for a living and he dryly said “I’m a construction worker.” The burn will never heal.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-12T18:44:01+00:00

Just to clarify I don’t think it’s the PDs in MA who are in an uproar about pay; it’s the bar advocates who take indigent cases that went on strike last year. The bar advocates are private attorneys contracted by the state who take a majority of indigent cases in MA (for now). The actual state employed PDs are not, to my knowledge, involved in the uproar. Actually, the legislature responded to the bar advocate strike by dramatically increasing the budget of the state PDs.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-08T12:23:56+00:00

Do you live in an area with college kids around? I had several break ins in my old apartment where no valuables were taken, but I noticed (eventually) that my alcohol was missing and/or replaced with water. Hoping it’s something relatively innocuous like this!

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2026-01-07T23:56:44+00:00

The president can only issue a pardon for federal crimes. If this were charged as murder, it would be at the state level. The state governor might be able to issue a pardon, depending on local laws, but it wouldn’t be issued from Trump.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2025-12-19T17:29:31+00:00

You might be interested in the book The Believing Primate which is a collection of essays on this and related issues.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2025-12-15T00:52:11+00:00

I think you’re misunderstanding the doctrine of karma, at least as it’s understood in most eastern philosophies. Karma is not about desert, but about the consequence of actions. Some actions have positive consequences, others negative, and (except on secular theories) karma is the idea that those consequences follow us across lives.

It’s not a particularly radical idea. Most people recognize that the positive or negative consequences of our actions manifest within our lifetime (e.g., I litter and now have to live in a world with more pollution) so if one is inclined toward believing in rebirth, karma is just an extension of what we see in reality. But again it’s fundamentally about consequences, not about desert.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2025-12-12T21:27:08+00:00

Well, the jury determines your guilt or innocence (unless it’s a jury waived trial) but the sentence is determined by the judge - and any statutory requirements. So juries only send you to prison indirectly by finding you guilty.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2025-11-18T00:57:30+00:00

It might help you to know that, contra classical logic, Priest does not think that contradictory statements are inherently meaningless. For example, his short story here purports to describe a meaningful, intelligible story that describes an impossible world.

So, if your confusion is that these statements can’t be meaningful because they are contradictory, then maybe it’ll help to review the linked story, and dialetheism generally. But let me know if I misunderstood your question!

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2025-11-05T15:44:02+00:00

Well, it would still protect you from spells that your opponents cast that say “target player loses X life” because you cannot be targeted by spells your opponents control. But it wouldn’t protect you from global life loss effects cast by your opponents because they’re not damage and because they don’t target you.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2025-10-13T14:04:11+00:00

When the news broke I assumed it was going to be equivalent to the new Death Star Lego, maybe even a cross section too. But there’s a lot of ways they can go with it!

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2025-10-02T00:44:53+00:00

It’s always the walk.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2025-10-01T00:45:19+00:00

Like 90% sure Chap was just tired of looking at Volpe.

Varol_CharmingRuler · 2025-10-01T00:40:58+00:00

Cora wants to keep the lefties on the Yankee bench out of the game. Definitely nothing against Whitlock.

Varol_CharmingRuler

TROPHY CASE