Young people are flocking to astrology

Re:Young people are flocking to astrology by ndsipa_pomu on Monday July 24, 2023 @07:37AM (#36846223)

That logic appears to be flawed though and involves a fair amount of hand-waving.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13752

> Feser’s formalization of this argument appears around page 35. It has 49 premises. I shit you not. Most of them are uncontroversial on some interpretation of the words he employs (that doesn’t mean they are credible on his chosen interpretation of those words, but I’ll charitably ignore that here), except one, Premise 41, where his whole argument breaks down and bites the dust: “the forms or patterns manifest in all the things [the substrate] causes…can exist either in the concrete way in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.” This is a false dichotomy, otherwise known as a bifurcation fallacy. It’s simply not true that those are the only two options. And BTW, this Premise, is the same key premise (hereafter always hidden) in all five of his arguments. We can thus refute all of them, by simply refuting this single premise (more on that later).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Young people are flocking to astrology by throw0101a on Monday July 24, 2023 @07:52AM (#36846386)

I would not turn to Carrier if you wish to counter-argue Feser:

> In an article at his blog, pop atheist writer Richard Carrier grandly claims to have “debunked!” (exclamation point in the original) Five Proofs of the Existence of God. It’s a bizarrely incompetent performance. To say that Carrier attacks straw men would be an insult to straw men, which usually bear at least a crude resemblance to the argument under consideration. They are also usually at least intelligible. By contrast, consider this paragraph from the beginning of Carrier’s discussion of the Aristotelian proof:

[…]

> As near as I can tell after reading and rereading those mind-numbingly obscure passages, what Carrier is criticizing is an argument that tries to show that God is the cause of the universe arising from nothing. And as near as I can tell, his objection is something to the effect that if we think carefully about what a “nothing-state” would be, we will see that that theistic conclusion isn’t warranted. Other scenarios, such as a multiverse scenario, are no less likely or even more likely. Of course, this has, again, absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what the Aristotelian proof actually says, and so Carrier’s objection would be completely irrelevant even if it were at all clear what that objection is. Carrier’s readers will learn as much about what my Aristotelian argument actually says as they would if they’d read an automotive repair manual instead. Only that would have been more lucid and interesting reading.

* https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/02/carrier-on-five-pro...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Young people are flocking to astrology by ndsipa_pomu on Monday July 24, 2023 @08:12AM (#36846646)

How about this:

https://ontologicalinvestigations.blogspot.com/2017/12/five-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Young people are flocking to astrology by throw0101a on Monday July 24, 2023 @10:23AM (#36848475)