Discuss with “Problems in philosophy” (God) lectures @MIT

Discuss with “Problems in philosophy” lectures @MIT
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-00-problems-in-philosophy-fall-2010/lecture-notes/

– God existence in “the the understanding” (conceivable) or in reality, Me: we cannot handle the reality due to the incompleteness of our understanding; in the “understanding”, we can think of an abstract object that incorporates all the possible generic values, and as long as we fail to find it contradictory, we can assume the existence of such an abstraction
– the God-ontological argument exploiting “A God that existed only in the mind would not be as great as a real God.” with “Existence is a perfection, a “great-making” property: it is greater to exist than not to. ” , Me: why do we the “undefined” existence call a perfection?
– what descriptions cannot be instanitiated? what is characteristic of all those abstractions?
– “Pegasus doesn’t exist doesn’t attribute a property to Pegasus; it can’t, for there is no such thing.” (Kant, Frege)
– “Of course the sentence ‘Tere are runicorns’ would be true in the mouth of an inhabitant of some world where unicorns existed. But that shows that what they would mean by it, and what we mean by it, are in some sense not the same. ”

– “necessity ontological argument”, “So if God is so much as possible, God is necessary.”, refer to it later

– “good anti-evil argument”, Me: “if God exists, there is no evil” argument fails due to the definition of “evil”, we cannot exactly know what and why is “good” for us
– “belief in God”, Me: needs to have foundations in something that goes beoynd anything perceptible, hence cannot be accessed,
– “Failure to see something (an elephant, a person, a reason) gives us reason to believe it is not there only if we are justified in believing that if it were there, we would see it.” (Russel)
– Pascal’s wager, Me: believing in God due to Pascal’s wager, means that we confirm that we think God exists based on the statistical assumption, ie. an assumption that does not touch the reasons but rather the results, hence is of lesser value, and, as such, this is the belief resulting from it, and it is never the case of a fruit that we have (belief) but the path that we took (reasons) (otherwise, one could say one believes in an arbitrary statement which had not been proven false)

Advertisements

About misha

Imagine a story that one can't believe. Hi. Life changes here. Small things only.
This entry was posted in Mathematics. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s