http://jwwartick.com/2009/10/21/the-ontological-consequences-of-naturalism/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:58:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ http://jwwartick.com/2009/10/21/the-ontological-consequences-of-naturalism/#comment-432 Sat, 02 Jan 2010 02:58:01 +0000 http://jwwartick.com/?p=158#comment-432 [...] Thus, I find this another reason to reject naturalism, which I’ve already discussed as being unintelligible and undermining things it should hold most dear. [...]

]]> http://jwwartick.com/2009/10/21/the-ontological-consequences-of-naturalism/#comment-353 Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:31:04 +0000 http://jwwartick.com/?p=158#comment-353 [...] Next, Parrish investigates the cosmological and teleological arguments. I’m not going to write much on this section, not because I didn’t think it was valuable, but because it is mostly a set up for Parrish’s main argument, that which he terms the “Transcendental Argument.” Parrish points out that everyone has some kind of “probability structure” from which they judge various propositions. Thus, someone who is a non-theist will believe that the probability of God’s existence is quite low, while a theist will most likely believe quite the opposite. Because of these probability structures, it is hard to fairly examine evidence from either viewpoint (generally 145 and following). I’d like to point out that Parrish’s discussion of plausibility/possibility structures is similar to Michael C. Rea’s own discussion of “Research Programs” in World Without Design (which I discussed here). [...]

]]> http://jwwartick.com/2009/10/21/the-ontological-consequences-of-naturalism/#comment-291 Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:31:43 +0000 http://jwwartick.com/?p=158#comment-291 [...] « The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism [...]

]]>