It’s not a false dichotomy. It’s a fair question.
I don’t disagree, I only disagree with what you think that condition to be.
Of course, I appreciate your openness and non-confrontational style.
bloomj31
Do you think the concept of human freedom rose from a vacuum or is of human construct? Please explain your answer.
I’m trying to learn here. I’m new to AE.
No, they just said “X, therefore magic caused it.” Causal realism has nothing to do with magic, period.
Yes, they do. Now you have to ask who got screwed for them to benefit.
It’s a false dichotomy. But don’t worry: I’ll wait for you to write a better question.
Are you familiar with the cosmological argument, or are you simply doing what you always do?
Of course I’m familiar with that childish nonsense which states that everything has a cause, and the cause of everything is magical. Now what does that have to do with causal-realism?
Hint: the belief that every belief is worthy of respect is stupid.
I’m not going to waste my time after this response, because I know you understand the argument but simply choose to straw man it.
Causal realism says that there is a necessary connection between cause and effect, as opposed to the regularity theory of causation which wants to dispense with any mysterious causal necessity, and also to distinguish causal connections from logical connections: one event cannot logically necessitate another. The cosmological argument uses causal realism in order to show that an infinite causal regress is impossible, since causal connection presupposes an initial cause. This also extends into the argument from contingency which says that the first cause must be necessary as opposed to the causal chain which consists of only contingent links. No one says that the cause of everything is “magical,” only that the first cause must be necessary. Without a causal connection you can’t have the cosmological argument–you get only chaos (which is what Hume believed). Empiricism had to reject that which it could not see, you know, what you call “magic.” But the existence of atoms, fields and genes were problematic, to say the least.
Except that I didn’t. Your idiotic belief that the ontocosmological argument (because Kant was correct that the cosmological boils down to the ontological) has any validity is your problem. You can go pout all you like because I won’t validate your belief by agreeing with you. Don’t care.
And doesn’t have anything to do with magic (hence the realism part).
Nice use of philosophyprofessor.com, btw.
Calling me an idiot or appealing to Kant does not make your argument any stronger. You have failed to show how Austrian methodology differs from the methodology employed by Aquinas, Copleston, and others.
Thank you. Yet again, you prove my point–talking to you is a waste of time.
It’s certainly of human construct. But so is socialism.
Do they care?
I’m not entirely sure where it came from. I don’t know what causes it to be fixed. I do know that I think it’s fixed. That individuals can make choices that are inconsistent with their nature is proof that habits can be changed. But just because habits can be changed doesn’t mean nature can be changed.
Basically, you can train the tiger, but you can’t make it anything other than a tiger.
Telling it like it is.
He is correct here; the cosmological is based upon the ontological, i.e. a maximal being. Perhaps you should stop believing that your idiotic belief deserves respect. You should also stop thinking that I will respect it. You should also stop getting butthurt when I tell you that I don’t respect it.
Except that I haven’t.
You’re welcome. You are quite a waste of time, though. You could have just said “I’m going to quote from philosophyprofessor.com, without any understanding of what I’m talking about” . But no–you felt it was better to just waste time. Fine.
Would you care if you just got robbed? I know I cared when my car got stolen.
Hope I’m not too late to the party here.
Of course humans desire liberty, but… There is a gun in the room!!!
The gun in the room perverts most people’s decision making.
Sure I care. But do the socialists?
The gun has no power without a human behind it, right?