tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2079408096312276452024-02-08T04:56:29.928-08:00Angra Mainyu's blogA blog about some arguments for or against Christianity and/or theism, and perhaps some other issues related to religion and/or philosophy of religion. Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-68887966974719019812019-01-30T01:10:00.000-08:002019-01-30T01:13:32.599-08:00The Perverted Faculty Argument: A reply to Edward Feser. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 6.0.7.3 (Linux)"/>
<meta name="created" content="2018-12-08T01:23:36.045548534"/>
<meta name="changed" content="2019-01-30T06:08:31.034207903"/>
<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115% }
a:link { so-language: zxx }
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
<p align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><b>The
Perverted Faculty Argument: A reply to Edward Feser. </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 12Intro"></a>
<font color="#000000"><b>1. Introduction. </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-weight: normal">Edward
Feser defends a perverted faculty argument <a href="#Bookmark 1 link a perverted faculty">[1]</a>
against contraception, masturbation, same-sex sex, and bestiality. In
this essay, I will argue that Feser’s argument is unsound, and that
his argumentation fails to provide support for his moral claims. </span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">In the next section, I will make some general
comments on the type of argument he makes. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">In the third section, I will argue against the
first and sixth premises of the perverted faculty argument. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">In the fourth section, I will argue that some
of the main tenets of the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics on which
Feser bases the argument are very probably false. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">In the fifth section, I will address some of
Feser’s claims about the natural end of our sexual faculties. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><b>2.
Individually probable premises and improbable conclusions. </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Suppose someone makes an argument for an
anti-natalist view. So, they come up with premises Q1,…,Qn, which
together entail that deliberately having children is always immoral
for any human being. In support of the premises, they give reasons
intended to persuade that they are true – in other words, they
argue for the premises, not in the sense of giving syllogisms that
have them as conclusions, but in the sense of ‘arguing a case’. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">As it turns out, each of the premises, when
individually considered, appears more probable than not from my
epistemic perspective, but <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">not
certain</span></span>. Should I accept an argument like that, and
conclude that the conclusion is true, or probably true? </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">It seems not. Even if each of the premises,
individually considered, is more probable than not, that does not
imply that their conjunction is. This is so even if the number of
premises is just two. But moreover, when assessing the probability of
a conclusion, I also should factor in other sources of information if
I have them. It turns out that another source of information is
precisely my own sense of right and wrong: when I contemplate
different hypothetical scenarios involving humans deliberately having
children, I can find plenty in which my sense of right and wrong says
that the behavior is not immoral. <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">The
fact that the immorality of all of those behaviors</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">is
implied by premises that individually considered appear more probable
than not but not extremely probable, is not good enough evidence to
conclude that my sense of right and wrong is failing, even if they
would weaken my confidence</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">to
some degree or another. </span></span>So, it is not the case that I
should accept the argument. In fact, I should not. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Let us now turn to Feser’s argument. I do not
find each of the premises probable – quite the opposite for at
least two of them, a matter that will become clear later on -, and
some of the very acts that Feser’s argument condemns are <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">clearly</span></span>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">not
immoral in all metaphysically possible situations, by my own lights.
Purely for example, in the majority of real life situations in which
humans masturbate, it is </span></span><i>obvious </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">to
me that it is not immoral to masturbate. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Still,
there are people who do not find those assessments so clear, and/or
are inclined to assign a higher probability to Feser’s premises.
So, I would give counterarguments with</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">counterexamples</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">not
involving any of the sexual behaviors Feser’s argument intends to
condemn. However, it is important to keep in mind that even</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">an
argument based on premises that individually appear probable is not
enough to establish a conclusion, and moreover, that it is sometimes
rational to reject an argument on the basis of a direct assessment
that the conclusion is false, for example if one has a generally
reliable source of information that yields the verdict that it is
false, and no sufficient</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">evidence
that the source in question is failing in that particular case, and
this is so even if one properly reckons that every individual premise
is probably true. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 11Sectioncommonsense"></a>
<b><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">3.
The perverted faculty argument</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">and
common sense.</span></font></span></b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">In
this section, I will first</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">argue
that the sixth premise of Feser’s argument is false, and in fact it
represents a radical rejection of common sense assessments of
rationality. Then, I will argue that the first premise is also</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">false
or</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
– </font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">depending
on how it is interpreted – probably false and additionally,
irrelevant to the matters under consideration. </span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>3.1. The sixth premise. </b></font>
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">The
sixth</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">premise
in Feser’s perverted faculty argument states: </span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 2cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>Feser: </b></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 2cm; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 15sixthpremise"></a><a name="Bookmark 15sixth premise"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">6.</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
it can be rational to engage in an act only if it is in some way good
for us and never when it frustrates the realization of the good.</span></span></font></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">One
first difficulty is information. More precisely, is that supposed to
be the case</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">under
conditions of full information only? </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Feser
says</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">earlier
that “what is </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">in
fact</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">good
is the realization of the various ends inherent in human nature; and
thus a </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">rational
and correctly informed</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">person
will perceive this and, accordingly, direct his actions towards the
realization or fulfillment of those ends”</span></span></font></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">However,
the conclusion of his argument does not seem to make exceptions, and
neither does this premise. Perhaps, Feser</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">meant
to make them? But </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">if</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
sixth</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">premise</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
only meant for cases of full information, that alone would make the
premise – and thus, the argument -</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">inapplicable
to many real-world situations, independently of other considerations.
</span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
any event, and for the sake of thoroughness, I will give examples in
which human beings</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">behave
rationally even when what they do is in no way good for them, due to
limited or false information. Moreover, sometimes it would be
irrational on their part not to act in ways that are very bad for
them. I will later argue</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
– </font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">on
different grounds – that even in cases in which there plenty of
relevant information – even as much as one finds in nearly all real
life cases -, the sixth premise has absurd implications. So, let us
begin with the</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">first
scenario. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">S0: Jack has been diagnosed with cancer, and
radiation therapy plus chemotherapy is the treatment his oncologist,
Joe, recommends. According to Joe, with that treatment, there is a
significant chance of recovery, even though there are significant
negative side effects and recovery is not certain, whereas without
the treatment, the cancer will almost certainly be fatal. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Jack requests a second opinion, and there is
agreement. Jack wants to get better, to stay alive, go on with his
life, stay with his family, etc. For those reasons, he accepts and
gets the prescribed treatment. Unfortunately, a very improbable
mix-up happened, and the results belonged to another patient. Jack
does not have cancer, and the radiation plus chemotherapy only hurts
him, damaging the proper function of several of his organs. </font>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">So, Jack behaves rationally, even though he
does something that is bad for him, and in no way good. It might be
argued that it is in </font><font color="#000000"><i>some </i></font><font color="#000000">way
good because he feels happier for a short while because he believes
that he’s going to get better. But if </font><font color="#000000"><i>that
</i></font><font color="#000000">is enough to meet the criterion of
the first part of the premise, no problem: let us add an example in
which not even that threshold is crossed. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 40carbomb"></a>
<font color="#000000">S1: Every day, Jill drives from her home to
work and back. There is no public transportation, and the distance is
too much for walking: it would take her hours; she would not be home
in time for dinner; her family would miss her, etc. A bicycle would
be risky on some of those roads. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">One day, when she’s at work, Sergei
stealthily plants a bomb in her car. He does so because he is a
professional assassin, and he believes that the car belongs to Olga –
who has an almost identical car. Sergei has been paid good money to
assassinate Olga, and he will get more when the job is successfully
completed. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Jill has no reason – like nearly everyone
else on the planet who has a car - to check her car for bombs – not
that she would find it except with a very thorough inspection. So,
she turns the ignition key. The bomb goes off, killing her. </font>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Surely, turning the ignition key was very bad
and in no way good for Jill, but she was rational in doing so. We
might modify the scenario so that her family is in the car too, and
her actions would remain rational – though it was even worse for
her -, or construct other, worse scenarios, e. g., she survives for a
few minutes, burned and bleeding, etc. </font>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">If one has a moral objection to using one’s
own car every day to go to work and back (buy why, given the specific
circumstances of Jill’s life?), we can change the scenario and
stipulate she rides a bicycle home and there is no danger in most
days, but one day a terrorist planted a bomb in the bicycle path,
etc.</font></p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">The upshot: it is apparent that there are
metaphysically possible scenarios – and even actual scenarios –
in which a human being rationally act in a way that is very bad and
in no way good for her. </font>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">In addition, there are metaphysically possible
– and even actual – scenarios in which it would be </font><font color="#000000"><i>irrational
</i></font><font color="#000000">for a human being to </font><font color="#000000"><i>fail</i></font><font color="#000000">
to do something that is very bad for her, and in no way good for her.
For example, in the scenario above, arguably it would not have been
rational on Jill’s part to fail to turn the key. Why shouldn’t
she do it? Perhaps, she wanted to take a walk first? If so, we may
further stipulate that Jill had promised her children she would be
home early to watch a movie together, and taking a walk – as far as
she knew – would only make her be there late. But she values
keeping her promises to her children, and she reckons –
epistemically rationally, given the information available to her –
that the only realistic way not to be late is to drive home without
delay. We may add more conditions if needed, but the point is that in
some surely metaphysically possible situations, the only rational
course or courses of action are not at all good and very bad for the
agent who makes the choice as to how to act – and surely far worse
than alternative, irrational courses of action would be -, due to
limited information. </font>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">So, let us assume that cases of limited
information like the ones above do not count, so they cannot falsify
the premise – that would be too easy. But then, a relevant question
is: What are the information requirements in this premise? Is it full
information? We may interpret full information not in an absolute
sense, but in the sense of all of the information required to decide
whether an action is good or bad for A, to what degree, etc. Yet,
even then, it is not the case that there is full information in all
real life cases. In fact, at least there isn’t full information in
plenty of real life cases, including many of those involving the
frustration of the functions or ends of human faculties. Maybe the
correct interpretation of Feser’s words is something else? But what
might it be? </font>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Regardless, I will assume from now on and for
the rest of this subsection that Feser has a way out of the
information objection, and I will consider other kinds of scenarios,
focusing on the second part of the premise – namely, about the
frustration of the realization of the good. </font>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Note that the word “cannot” in the premise
is about metaphysical possibility – as clearly indicated by the
rest of the premises and the argumentation given by Feser in support
of them -, so the premise entails something like: </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 2cm; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 41alternativesixth"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">6.2.</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It
is metaphysically impossible for it to be rational for a human being
to engage in an act when the act</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">frustrates
the realization of the good.</span></span></font></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">However,
this is absurd, information aside. To see why, we begin with the
examples of smoking and breastfeeding: </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>Feser: </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">To
be sure, smoking to excess clearly </span></span><i>does</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">frustrate
the natural end of breathing, and </span></span><i>refraining
altogether</i><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">from
breastfeeding one’s children arguably frustrates the natural end of
lactation, especially if we factor in the bonding between mother and
child that is facilitated by nursing. But then, precisely for these
reasons, people are inclined to raise at least a mild moral objection
to smoking to excess, and even gently to recommend that it is, all
things considered, better for mothers to breastfeed their children.
In this way, common sense clearly tracks the “old” natural law
theory’s insistence that there is a connection between what is good
for us and what is consistent with the realization of the ends nature
has set for us.</span></span></font></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">The
reason many people seem to raise mild moral objections to smoking to
excess is that there are predictable negative consequences for family
members or coworkers or other third parties who are exposed to the
smoke, or at most – though most controversially, and this probably
varies widely with the person raising the mild moral objection in
question</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> – </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">due
to the negative health consequences for the smoker. Moreover, the
moral objections that people tend to raise would be immediately
withdrawn – except, perhaps, for some people rejecting common sense
– in some of the metaphysically possible</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">scenarios
in which the actions of smoking enough to frustrate the natural end
of breathing or the complete refraining of breastfeeding are carried
out in order to prevent something much worse. On that note, let us
consider the following scenario: </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 25dictatorship"></a>
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">S2:</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Jorge</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">lives
in a dictatorship, and is a political prisoner. He lives in an
infamous prison, ruled with an iron fist by Raúl, the prison
commander. Jorge’s</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">wife
and children live in somewhat better conditions in a nearby building,
but also within the control of Raúl, who has proven particularly
vicious, and tends to brutally</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">punish
any prisoner who</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">fails
to follow his commands – even on trivial matters. In the case of
prisoners who have their families held there as well, the punishment</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">often
involves having the prisoner’s spouse</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">and/or</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">children
beaten up badly, or raped, or both. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">When
Raúl has an inmate’s family tortured, he always forces that inmate
and at least several others to watch, so after six months of
imprisonment, Jorge – like all prisoners who have been there for
about</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">month
or more </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">– </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">knows</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">about
Raúl’s abject behavior. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">As
it turns out, Raúl is also a very heavy smoker, and takes himself to
be an expert in history – though he has a very twisted
interpretation of many historical events. Given that Jorge is</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">a
history professor, Raúl takes an interest, so he has Jorge brought
to him, gives him a cigarette – Raúl is already smoking -, and
tells Jorge – making it clear he won’t take ‘no’ for an
answer - to smoke with him, and discuss history. Jorge has never
smoked before, and knows it is bad for his health</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">and
even believes that it frustrates the natural end of breathing, but
given the information available to him, there is a very credible and
terrible</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">threat
to his family, and smoking – and talking history with Raúl, lying
of course and being very careful not to anger</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">him
–</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">is
clearly the best available option by far to protect them. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">In the end, Raúl ends up doing that at least
three days a week, and he and Jorge smoke for about two hours a day,
on average. Fearing for his family, Jorge never declines Raúl’s
‘invitation’ to smoke, though as the years go by, Jorge realizes
that his breathing function is not only being frustrated, but is
degrading over time as a result of the smoking. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Surely,
Jorge did nothing irrational, even though smoking like that
frustrates the end of breathing. The conclusion that he was even
slightly irrational in his acts of smoking would fly on the face of
common sense. So,</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">it
is clearly metaphysically possible for human beings</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
smoke to excess – frustrating the</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">natural
end of breathing, as Feser says<a href="#functionnotend">[A]</a> -,
and behave rationally in doing so. Here is another scenario: </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 20rogueAI1"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">S3:
A rogue AI with superhuman intelligence</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">has
taken over the world<a href="#Bookmark 16possible AI">[B]</a>, and
humans live under its rules. The AI enforces its rules publicly and
punishes violations. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
AI – by means of the trillions</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">robots
of different sizes it controls - provides</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">sufficient
food and water for all humans, and also makes</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">sure
that the human population does not fall below 10</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">millions.
To that effect, it</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">uses</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">cloning,
artificial insemination, artificial wombs,</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">etc.<a href="#Bookmark 19cloning">[C]</a>
Also, nearly every living human has at least one living sibling, at
least until they reach they age of 70 – an age most humans do
reach, in relatively good health -; this is also the result of the
AI’s actions. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Humans are allowed to choose their own names
freely when they are old enough to make that choice, but they are
also given an identification number by the AI. The numbers are
sequential – 1, 2, 3, etc. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">For
the most part, the AI does not kill, torture – beyond its very
oppressive rules, that is - or otherwise inflict pain on humans. In
fact, it even provides for nearly all of them very advanced medical
attention if and when they need</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">it.
But male humans</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">with
prime IDs are not given medical attention after they reach the age of
40, and are also subject to the following</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">weird
rule: each of them must frustrate his own breathing function by means
of smoking at least 50 cigarettes a day (it’s a rogue AI, and it
ended up with a weird value function because of some programmer’s
mistake). </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">If
one of them refuses to smoke the daily 50 cigarettes, then the
following 200</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">adult
humans (in ID order) are</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">tortured
to death in 20 different and horrific ways: 10</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">of
them are</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">fed
to starving wolves, 10</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">are</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">doused
with oil and slowly burned to death, etc. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">John
is a 40</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">years
old human male, and lives</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">under
the AI’s rule. John’s ID number is 47055833459, so the prime
number rule described above applies to him. In order to save 200</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">people
– including some of his friends and his brother - from a horrendous
fate, he smokes 50 cigarettes every day, frustrating the end of
breathing, even though he is aware of the effects of smoking on human
health – as most people are, because the AI is very clear about
that, and it is known to be truthful: it does not lie, and provides
good evidence of its claims when asked, as well as good information
about nearly any</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">subject
that humans might ask about, with only a few</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">exceptions
– where it refuses to answer, rather than lie. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">John</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">smokes
50 cigarettes a day</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">because
he values keeping his brother, some of his friends and the rest of
those</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">people
safe from the horrific fate that awaits them if he does not smoke the
50 cigarettes more than he values his not suffering the negative
consequences of smoking like that, and surely more than he values the
not frustration of one of the functions of one of his organs or
systems. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
scenario is obviously not</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">realistic,
but it is metaphysically possible<a href="#Bookmark 16possibleAI">[B]</a><a href="#Bookmark 48possiblemethods">[C]</a>.
It should be</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">clear
that John’s</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">behavior
is rational. This also shows that <a href="#Bookmark 15sixthpremise">Premise
6</a> is false, and even that <a href="#Bookmark 41alternativesixth">6.2</a></span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
false, assuming of course that any instance of frustrating a natural
end of one’s faculties is in fact an instance of frustrating the
realization of the good. But if it is not the case that any instance
of frustrating a natural end of one’s faculties is an instance of
frustration of the realization of the good in the sense of <a href="#Bookmark 15sixthpremise">Premise
6</a>, then Feser’s argument seems to be a non-starter, since the
premise could not be applied to reach the intended conclusion. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Incidentally,
Feser’s argument intends not only to show that some behaviors are
irrational, but also that they are </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">immoral</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
While that is not stated in <a href="#Bookmark 15sixthpremise">Premise
6</a>, it does follow from the view Feser’s</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">defends
that behaviors involving the frustration of natural human ends are</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">immoral</span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">.</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
that also flies on the face of moral common sense. John’s</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">behavior
is not immoral, regardless of whether he behaved immorally before by
having children in a world like that – though one might get around
that as well by stipulating, for instance,</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
the AI made the children</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">by
artificial means like cloning or artificial insemination + artificial
wombs, or forcibly impregnated John’s wife Penny using John’s
sperm, or by some other means. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Granted,
all of the previous cases are</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">unrealistic,
but again, Feser’s sixth premise involves a claim about
metaphysical necessity, so unrealistic yet metaphysically possible
cases can be used to test it and falsify it</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
– </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">though
I will consider realistic examples later. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">The other case identified by Feser – namely,
breastfeeding – also can be used to show that the premise under
consideration is false, in an essentially similar manner. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 21rogueAI2"></a><a name="Bookmark 23scenariobreastfeeding"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">S4:
The general situation is as in <a href="#Bookmark 20rogueAI1">S</a><a href="#Bookmark 20rogueAI1">cenario
S</a><a href="#Bookmark 20rogueAI1">3</a>. Here’s another AI rule:
Each human female with an ID number that is a prime power of 3 must
have at least 3 children if she</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">can
</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">–
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
AI will use</span></span></font></span></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">forced
insemination in case of refusal -, and must deliberately frustrate
the function</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">or
natural end of breastfeeding by refraining from doing so altogether.
She is</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">allowed
to feed them with high-quality formula, and otherwise allowed to
raise her</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">children,
bond with them, etc., as long as the rules are kept of course. But
she</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">must
refrain from breastfeeding. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">If
one of the females</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">in
that situation breastfeeds one or more of her children, then the
following 1000</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">adult
humans (in ID order) are</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">tortured
to death in 20 different and horrific ways: 50 of them are fed to
starving wolves, 50 are</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">doused
with oil and slowly burned to death, etc. Also, one of her</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">siblings
is tortured to death in one of those manners, if she has a living
sibling – which nearly everyone has before they are 70. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Mary’s ID number is 94143178827, so the rule
applies to her, and she chooses to refrain from breastfeeding
altogether. She does care for her children a lot, and makes a huge
effort to raise them well in that horrible world. But she does not
breastfeed them, for the sake of her sister Jane and the other 1000
people who would otherwise face torture to death. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">As
in the smoking example, it should be clear that Mary behaves neither
irrationally nor immorally. In particular, the rationality of her
behavior in this metaphysically possible scenario falsifies <a href="#Bookmark 15sixthpremise">Premise
6</a>. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Of
course, in addition to smoking or a total lack of breastfeeding, one
can find other cases in which the function or natural end of</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">another</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">faculty
is frustrated, but the behavior is not irrational. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It
is true that in the previous examples, people are acting under
terrible threats. But they are still making choices, and rational
ones. Indeed, their ability to choose has not been taken away from
them entirely, even the range of available alternatives is hugely
constrained. But there are</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">no
exceptions for threats</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
<a href="#Bookmark 15sixthpremise">Premise 6</a>. It could be argued
that Feser meant to exclude cases involving threats, but that seems
unlikely: there is nothing in the paper suggesting that. Still, let
us consider a weaker variant, excluding threats. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 60nothreat"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">6.3.
It is metaphysically impossible for it to be rational for a human
being to engage in an act when the act frustrates the realization of
the good and the human being in question is not facing a significant
threat. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It
turns out that 6.3 is enough to show that the premise is false, and
in fact absurd. </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
f</span></span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">or
our next</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">example
– or rather, our next family of similar examples - , let us
consider something Feser says about eyeglasses and binoculars. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>Feser: </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Nor does the premise entail that to use
man-made devices is per se to frustrate the natural end of F. On the
contrary, man-made devices can sometimes restore natural function (as
with eyeglasses) or enhance it (as with binoculars).</font></p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 24distortingglasses"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Fair
enough, in </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">those
</span></i></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">cases,
there is no frustration. However, we can consider cases in which
there is frustration, and even deliberate frustration of a function -
or natural end of a faculty, or whatever one calls it<a href="#functionnotend">[A]</a>.
For example, a number of experiments using </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">distortion
goggles</span></i></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">have
been done, in order to study different aspects of our visual
function, and how much it adapts – if at all - to some specific
abnormal conditions that make it malfunction. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">It might be objected that the eyes have a
general purpose of seeing, which is allegedly not frustrated. On that
note, Feser makes the following distinction: </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 56notpassive"></a><a name="Bookmark 61passive"></a>
<font color="#000000"><b>Feser: </b>A third point to keep in mind is
that there are crucial differences between, on the one hand, an
<i>individual deliberate act</i> of using a bodily faculty and, on
the other, <i>an ongoing and involuntary physiological process. </i><span style="text-decoration: none">Use
of the sexual organs is an example of the former whereas hair growth,
breathing, perspiring, and lactating are examples of the latter. Now
the former has a specific end-state or climax, while the latter do
not.</span></font></p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">The use of the eyes for seeing <i>might</i> be
more similar in this regard, <i>at least most of the time</i>, to
hair growth, breathing, etc., than to the use of the sexual organs in
the way under discussion – though this too is debatable; the visual
function seems to be somewhere in between, again most of the time. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">However, these experiments do not fall into the
‘at least most of the time’ category. In fact, in these
experiments, the eyes are deliberately used in a way that frustrates
the visual function in very specific manners, in order to study how
and to what extent the visual function can adapt, what other
consequences there are, etc. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Granted, the distortion goggles are not
actually making the eyes malfunction, but only distorting the images
by getting in the way of the light that goes through the eye.
However, <i>the visual function</i> is being frustrated and
deliberately made to malfunction, even if there is no organ damage.
For that matter, using a condom during sex impairs the reproductive
function without actually causing any sort of organ damage, at least
in nearly all actual cases in which condoms are used. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
this is a decisive counterexample. However, I suspect that a defender
of the perverted faculties argument might insist that there is no
frustration in the case of distortion goggles, for some reason,
perhaps insisting on</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#Bookmark 61passive">Feser’s
distinction between individual deliberate acts, and ongoing,
involuntary physiological processes</a>. I already argued that this
reply fails and this example does involve a deliberate individual
act, but leaving this example aside, let us consider the case of the
process of eating, which also resembles</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
case of the use of the sexual organs in the relevant senses: </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>Feser:</b> By contrast, the process that
begins with arousal and ends with ejaculation within the vagina is
episodic rather than ongoing, and its outcome, which <i>is</i> a
specific event, <i>is</i> frustrated by contraception, masturbation,
and the like.</font></p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Similarly, there is a process that begins with
hunger and ends with a person swallowing the food. Just as the
process described by Feser involves deliberately placing a penis in a
vagina and taking actions that result in greater arousal until the
male has an orgasm and ejaculates in the female’s vagina – the
sexual act doesn’t have to end there of course, but Feser stops
there in his argumentation -, the eating process we are considering
involves placing food in the mouth, chewing it if needed and as much
as needed, and then swallowing the bolus, which is the specific
outcome. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Granted, in reality the deliberate actions are
usually repeated, and the person usually swallows more than one
bolus. However, that is not a relevant dissimilarity, not only
because the male sometimes also ejaculates more than once, or because
sometimes there is only one bolus – the availability of food might
be limited; the person might be eating a moth or another small thing,
etc. -, but more importantly and directly, because the fact that the
process or processes involve in many – most cases – repeated
deliberate acts does not make them any less deliberate, and repeated
acts of swallowing the bolus are also specific events – or an
event, depending on how one counts. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">So, how can we frustrate the specific outcome? </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">The first way would be to provoke vomit
immediately afterwards. Surely, there are metaphysically possible
situations in which that is not immoral or irrational. In fact, in
the context of medical experiments – among others -, no significant
threat is required for it not to be irrational or immoral. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It
might be objected that, perhaps, that does </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not
</span></i></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">frustrate
the outcome, since it does not prevent food from getting into the
stomach – it just removes it immediately afterwards. But now
consider emergency contraception: Emergency contraception does </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not
</span></i></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">frustrate
the outcome of depositing semen in the vagina. It frustrates the
involuntary process of fertilization that begins afterwards. Yet,
Feser says that contraception frustrates its outcome. So, it appears
that frustrating the involuntary process of fertilization that begins
immediately after ejaculation in the vagina counts as a frustration
in the relevant sense, in the context of the perverted faculty
argument. But similarly, then, frustrating the process of digestion
in the stomach that begins after the person swallows the food</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
also a case of frustrating the eating process described above. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">When we consider the entire relevant sets of
events side by side, the parallel is striking: In the sexual case, a
female and a male deliberately take ordinary actions resulting in his
ejaculation in her vagina - which puts semen in her vagina -, and
afterwards, she frustrates the fertilization process by taking
emergency contraception. In the eating case, a person deliberate
takes ordinary actions resulting in his swallowing food – which
puts food in his stomach - , and immediately after that, he
frustrates the digestion process by provoking vomit. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Another way to frustrate the process would be
not to provoke vomit immediately after eating, but rather, taking a
drug before eating that will provoke vomit immediately after the
person eats, or a few minutes later. In other words, in this case,
the vomiting happens just the same, but the person takes action
before eating, not immediately after that. In this case, the parallel
would be with taking non-emergency oral contraceptives. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Leaving
aside the previous family of counterexamples, we can find new ones</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">by
considering Feser’s point about damaging organs.</span></span></font></span></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>Feser:</b> And if someone <i>did</i> so
mutilate the ears or nose that their function was impaired, this
would not be a <i>counterexample</i> to the perverted faculty
argument but rather exactly the sort of thing the “old” natural
law theory would condemn.</font></p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Actually,
that is a counterexample to the “old” natural law theory, as well
as to <a href="#Bookmark 15sixth premise">Premise 6</a>.</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Obviously,
there are metaphysically possible situations in which mutilating
one’s own ears and nose so that their function is impaired would be
irrational and/or immoral. But </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">also
obviously –</span></i></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">barring
rejection of common sense-, there are metaphysically possible
situations in which such behaviors would be neither irrational nor
immoral. Purely for example, one may construct scenarios along the
lines of <a href="#Bookmark 25dictatorship">Scenario S2</a>, or
<a href="#Bookmark 20rogueAI1">Scenario S3</a>, etc. Alternatively,
we can consider the case of donating a healthy kidney or a lung. That
is not in all actual instances immoral or irrational – not even to
a small extent. Yet, surely by removing a healthy kidney, or a
healthy lung, etc., at least one of the human faculties is impaired.
Granted, the </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">goal
</span></i></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
not to impair it, but for that matter, the goal or goals of
masturbation or same-sex sex generally is not to impair or frustrate
any human end or function. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
said, these latest examples do involve significant threats – in a
broad sense of the word -, either to the person making the choice, or
– in ordinary cases of organ donation – to some other person. So,
</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">if</span></i></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">threats
are not allowed in the interpretation of this premise, these
particular examples fail to falsify it. To avoid that problem, we may
consider the case of appendectomies that are not for the purpose of a
donation. For example, doctors who spend the winter at Australian
bases in Antarctica have their appendix removed.<a href="#Bookmark 55australia">[2]</a>
Here, no one is at risk. There might be a risk </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">later</span></i></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
if they do go to Antarctica, but they are not forced to go there.
Does that particular surgery impair a function? It is not certain,
but there is a significant chance that – at least - the immune
function is impaired. <a href="#Bookmark 54appendix1">[</a><a href="#Bookmark 54appendix1">3</a><a href="#Bookmark 54appendix1">]</a>
</span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">To close this section, it is interesting to
note that Feser says that “Sometimes one good can be sacrificed for
the sake of a higher good, as when one sacrifices marriage and family
for the sake of the priesthood or religious life.” </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">While
I think he is mistaken about that particular example – in my
assessment, priesthood or religious life would generally if not
always be a case of irrational behavior, if the person is sincere
about it -, Feser is clearly correct that one can sometimes
rationally sacrifice a good for the sake of a higher good. However,
he does not make that exception for cases in which a rational agent
uses one of her faculties in a way that frustrates its function or
natural end. On the contrary, he argues against there being any
exceptions. This is a mistake. As some of the previous examples –
and many others one can construct – show, some of the
metaphysically possible and even some of the actual cases in which it
is rational for a human being to sacrifice a good to obtain a greater
good – or to bring about an evil to prevent a greater evil – are
cases in which a human being rationally acts in a way that uses a
human faculty against its function – or natural end, or whatever
one calls it.<a href="#functionnotend">[A]</a></span></span></font></span></p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>3.2. The first premise.</b></font></p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">The first premise in Feser’s perverted
faculty argument states: </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 2cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>Feser: </b></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 2cm; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 14premise1"></a><a name="Bookmark 22firstpremiseb"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">1.
Where some faculty </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">F</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
natural to a rational agent </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">A</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
by nature exists for the sake of some end E (and exists in </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">A</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">precisely
</span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">so
that A</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">might
pursue </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">E</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">),
then it is metaphysically impossible for it to be good for </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">A</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
use </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">F</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
a manner contrary to </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">E</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.</span></span></font></span></p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Granting for now and for the sake of the
argument that faculties exist “so that” ends are pursued, one
question is how to interpret the expression “good for A” in this
premise. Does it mean ‘overall good’ for A? Does it mean ‘good
in every respect, with no negative side effect’? Does it mean
something else? </font>
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">Feser
does not say, but when responding to objections, he</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">states:
</span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 2cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>Feser: </b></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 2cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">A
genuine counterexample to the perverted faculty argument’s key
premise would have to involve an action that </span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i>both</i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">involved</span></font></span><font color="#000000">
</font><font color="#000000"><i>the active frustration</i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">of
the natural end of a faculty and yet which was </span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i>in
no way</i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">contrary
to what is good for us, not even in a minor respect. I submit that
there are no such counterexamples, and that there could not be any
given an Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics of the good.</span></font></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">This
looks like</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">a
very odd requirement. If a genuine counterexample requires that, then
it seems that</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">the
first premise should be understood as something like: </span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 2cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">1.b.
Where some faculty </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">F</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
natural to a rational agent </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">A</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
by nature exists for the sake of some end E (and exists in </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">A</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">precisely
</span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">so
that</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">A
might pursue </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">E</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">),
then it is metaphysically impossible for it not to be in at least
some way contrary to what is good for us – even in a minor respect
- for </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">A</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
use </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">F</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
a manner contrary to </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">E</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.</span></span></font></span></p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">What can we say about that interpretation? </font>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">First,
even under that interpretation, the first premise seems to be</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">false.
As I mentioned before, participating in </span></span></font></span><a href="#Bookmark 24distortingglasses"><b>distorting
goggles experiments</b></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
even as a subject – i. e., wearing</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
glasses - does not have – at least in some</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">actual
cases, not to mention metaphysically possible ones </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">–
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">any
negative side effects. The fact that our faculty to see is
temporarily impaired</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
made to malfunction does not need to be negative or bad for a person
in any way, just as closing one’s eyes for a while does not need to
have negative or bad for a person in any way.</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Second,
even assuming for the sake of the argument that the distortion
goggles example fails for one reason or another, under this
interpretation the premise would not set apart acts in which </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">A</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">uses
</span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">F</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
a manner contrary to </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">E</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">from
plenty of other cases in which behaviors that are </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">in
some way </span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">contrary
to what is good for us are </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">overall
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">good
for us, and are</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">rational
– and this is of course even leaving aside cases of limited
information.</span></span></font></span></p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Take, for example, major surgery to prevent
death. There are plenty of times when there is good information, and
surgery is rational, and even cases in which it would be irrational
not to have surgery. Yet, surgery is <i>in some way</i> against what
is good for the patient: the patient is cut, bleeds, etc., in other
words, she suffers wounds that can be very serious – and in the
case of major surgery, those wounds are predictably very serious.
None of that would happen without she surgery. But the surgery is
still overall good for the patient, and rational, at least in most
cases, even if it is <i>in some way</i> contrary to what is good for
the patient, and in spite of the fact that it is metaphysically
possible that the patient would make a full recovery without the
surgery. </font>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It
might be suggested that in those cases, the surgery is in no way
against what is good for the patient, because otherwise the patient
probably or very probably would have suffered a worse fate. However,
there are metaphysically possible cases in which </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">also</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">something
worse happens to the person</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">if
the person does not use a faculty in a manner contrary their proper
function. So, </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">if,
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">for
the purposes of </span></span></font></span><a href="#Bookmark 14premise1"><span style="font-weight: normal">Premise
1</span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
surgery in those cases is considered not against what is good for the
patient – </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not
even in a minor respect -,</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">on
account of the fact that it probably or very probably it prevents
something worse – when probabilities are assessed rationally from
the epistemic perspective of the person choosing whether or not to
have surgery - , then some of the</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">examples
on the previous subsection are also not against what is good for the
person who acts</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
– </font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">not</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">even
in a minor respect -, falsifying </span></span></font></span><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#Bookmark 14premise1">Premise
1</a>.</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">Moreover,</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">we
do not need to consider only cases in which major surgery is
performed for the benefit of the patient. We can consider organ
donation again. At the very least some of those cases – actual
cases, not only metaphysically possible ones </span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">–
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">are
cases in which the donor’s behavior is not irrational in the least,
let alone immoral. In fact, in some cases, the behavior is even</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><font color="#000000"><i>morally praiseworthy</i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">.
Yet, it is clearly</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><font color="#000000"><i>in some way </i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">contrary
to what is good for her to donate the organ, since she is losing a
healthy organ – not to mention the wound she suffers in the
extraction procedure -, and her health predictably deteriorates as a
result, at least one of her faculties is damaged, etc. </span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">In
short, there are plenty of acts that are </span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i>in
some way </i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">contrary
to what is good for the person A engaging in the act, but in which A
acts rationally and in a morally neutral or even morally praiseworthy
fashion, even if A has as much knowledge of the situation as humans
normally and/or</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">usually</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">have.
For that reason, even if it were the case that all acts in which a
human agent A uses a faculty </span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i>F</i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">in
a manner contrary to its natural purpose</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><font color="#000000"><i>E</i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">,
are cases in which the act is at least in some way contrary to what
is good for A, that </span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i>would
still provide no good reason to even suspect that all of those</i></font><font color="#000000">
</font><font color="#000000"><i>acts are irrational and/or immoral. </i></font>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
perhaps, Feser did not mean that, and what he meant when he stated
the requirements for a genuine counterexample is that in order to be
a genuine counterexample to </span></span></font></span><a href="#Bookmark 22firstpremiseb"><span style="font-weight: normal">Premise
1</span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
a metaphysically possible scenario must show an</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">action
that involves</span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"> </font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
active frustration of the natural end of a faculty and yet which is</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">not</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">overall</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">contrary
to what is good for the agent who acts in that manner? </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">If
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">this
is what Feser meant, then the case is similar to one already
considered, and several of the examples </span></span></font></span><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#Bookmark 15sixthpremise">in
the previous subsection</a> are decisive counterexamples</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
since I constructed some scenarios in which actions involve</span></span></font></span><font color="#000000">
</font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
active, even deliberate frustration of the natural end of a faculty,
and are not </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">overall</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">contrary
to what is good for the person who acts. A potential objection to
this would be to deny this, and insist</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
the actions in all of my examples are overall against what is good
for the person who acts, even if overall good </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">simpliciter</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
or overall good for others, etc. However, that objection has at least
two key problems: </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I.
If scenarios such as <a href="#Bookmark 25dictatorship">Scenario S2</a>,
<a href="#Bookmark 20rogueAI1">Scenario S3</a>, <a href="#Bookmark 21rogueAI2">Scenario
S4</a> are examples of actions that are overall against what is good
for the person who acts, then – since the actions are </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">clearly</span></i></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">rational
-, there are metaphysically possible cases in which it is rational to
act in a way that is overall against what is good for the person who
acts, and even when erroneous or unusually limited information is not
the problem. But if so, then <a href="#Bookmark 22firstpremiseb">Premise
1</a> – <a href="#Bookmark 42interpretation">interpreted in this
manner </a>– would still fail to play any role regardless of
whether it is true, since there would be plenty of cases involving
rational – and even informed - actions that are against what is
overall good for the person who acts. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">II.
In the distortion goggles examples, as I pointed out, there is
nothing negative for the person – not even a little bit. But even
assuming otherwise, at the very least it should be even more obvious
that the actions of a person who participates in those experiments
are not always </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">overall
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">against
what is good for her: for example, maybe she wants to contribute to
science a little bit, and there is clearly nothing in the experiments
that would outweigh that and make them overall negative for her. The
same can be said about for provoking vomit when there is no health
need for it, or similar examples. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
upshot: If one interprets </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">“</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">it
is metaphysically impossible for it to be good for A</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">”
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
</span></span></font></span><a href="#Bookmark 22firstpremiseb"><span style="font-weight: normal">Premise
1</span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
mean that it is metaphysically impossible for it not to be overall
contrary what is good for A, then the premise is false, as several
examples show. In fact, it clearly conflicts with common sense. On
the other hand, if the premise is interpreted</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
mean that it is metaphysically impossible for it not to be at least
in some respect – even if minor - against what is good for A to
behave in that manner, then</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
premise is still</span></span></font></span><font color="#000000">
</font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">probably</span></span></font></span><font color="#000000">
</font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">false,
and additionally, even if it were true, it would be</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">pointless
to have a premise like that in the context of an argument against the
rationality of the</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">behaviors
that concern us. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 26AristotelianThomism"></a>
<font color="#000000"><b>4. Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics.</b></font></p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
his defense of the perverted faculty argument, Feser claims that
</span></span></font></span><a href="#Bookmark 14premise1"><span style="font-weight: normal">Premise
1</span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">follows
from Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics of the good, and generally
bases his argumentation on Aristotelian-Thomism. While Feser
acknowledges that the metaphysical picture in question is
controversial and does not defend it in the paper, he makes
sufficient claims to raise a number of objections, which I will do in
this section. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">That
said, the following</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">objections
are not</span></font></span><font color="#000000"> </font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">required
for the case against the perverted faculty argument to succeed. In
fact, that case has already been made in the previous section, and it
stands on its own. However, given how strongly connected the
Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical view</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">and
Feser’s defense of the premises of the perverted faculty argument
seem to be, it seems adequate in this context to raise objections to
that theory</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">as
well. </span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 35kinds"></a>
<font color="#000000"><b>4.1. Kinds, natures, species, and the ‘old’
natural law theory. </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000">Feser’s
perverted faculty argument is based on what he describes as the “old”
natural law theory. As Feser explains, this theory of ethics is
grounded on Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics. Two key features of
this metaphysical view are described by Feser as follows: </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><b>Feser:
</b><span style="font-weight: normal">In particular, natural law
theory as Aquinas and the Neo-Scholastics understand it presupposes
an </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">essentialism</span></i>
<span style="font-weight: normal">according to which natural
substances possess essences that are objectively real (rather than
inventions of the human mind or mere artifacts of language) and
immanent to the things themselves (rather than existing in a Platonic
third realm); and a </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">teleologism</span></i>
<span style="font-weight: normal">according to which the activities
and processes characteristic of a natural substance are “directed
toward” certain ends or outcomes, and inherently so, by virtue of
the nature of the thing itself (rather than having a “directedness”
that is purely extrinsic or entirely imposed from outside, the way
artifacts do). </span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000">I
think there is such thing as objective proper function and similar
notions, and also that our claims about the world around us –
including but not limited to what Aristotelian-Thomism would
classified as “natural substances” - are generally objective, but
not in the senses that would follow from Aristotelian-Thomism; this
should become clear as I address some of Feser’s examples. So, let
us first consider triangles: </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>Feser: </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">A triangle drawn hastily on the cracked plastic
seat of a moving bus might fail to be completely closed or to have
perfectly straight sides, and thus its angles will add up to
something other than 180 degrees. Indeed, even a triangle drawn
slowly and carefully on paper with an art pen and a ruler will
contain subtle flaws. Still, the latter will far more closely
approximate the essence of triangularity than the former will. It
will be a <i>better</i> triangle than the former. Indeed, we would
quite naturally describe the latter as a <i>good</i> triangle and the
former as a <i>bad</i> one.</font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">That is all correct, as long as the word
‘triangle’ is being used in a colloquial sense, rather than a
strict mathematical definition of a Euclidean triangle: in such
strict sense, we have never seen a triangle, and nothing we can draw
actually meets the criterion, but in colloquial speech, the word
‘triangle’ is not used in that manner, and as Feser correctly
points out, there are good and bad triangles, triangles that are
better than others, etc., and all of them are triangles. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
now, suppose we make a computer program that draws triangles and, in
many different ways, very gradually transforms them – in a
gazillion steps, changing one pixel at a time – into circles. So,
we start with a computer generated triangle, and that is an extremely
good triangle. In fact, it is better than the triangle drawn
carefully on paper in Feser’s example<a href="#Bookmark 43printing">[D]</a>.
And if only one pixel is changed, the result will still be an
extremely good triangle. However, some of the gazillion triangles
that the computer generates before we get a circle on our screen will
be mediocre ones. Some will be pretty bad triangles. And some of the
transition figures will neither be triangles nor circles. </span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Yet, there seems to be no good reason to think
there is a specific ‘first non-triangle’ in the series of figures
that starts with a very good triangle and ends with a very good
circle, or a specific ‘first bad triangle’. In fact, it seems
improbable that there are such firsts. Similarly, there seems to be
no good reason to think there is a specific ‘first circle’ or
‘first good circle’. Rather, it seems - at least - probable there
is no objective fact of the matter as to whether some of the figures
that are triangles are bad ones, or whether some of the figures are
bad triangles or non-triangles, or whether some are circles, or good
circles, etc., in the usual sense of the expression ‘no objective
fact of the matter’. This does not appear to be an epistemic issue:
It is not that we are not in a epistemic position to tell which
figure is the first non-triangle, etc. Rather, the problem seems to
be a problem of language: our colloquial term ‘triangle’ is very
probably not precise enough for there to be an objective fact of the
matter as to whether some figures are triangles, or bad triangles, or
good circles, and so on. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Now, if there were a ‘first non-triangle’,
let F(1) be the first figure on screen, and F(k<sub>0</sub>) the last
triangle. Then, F(k<sub>0</sub>+1) is just F(k<sub>0</sub>) with a
single pixel changed, and <i>very far</i> more similar to F(k<sub>0</sub>)
than F(k<sub>0</sub>) is to F(1). In fact, F(k<sub>0</sub>+1) is so
similar to F(k<sub>0</sub>) that they are indistinguishable to the
naked human eye. On the other hand, both F(k<sub>0</sub>) and F(k<sub>0</sub>+1)
are vastly different from F(1). They are vastly different in the way
they look to us humans, and in the number of pixels they have in
common. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">It seems at least <i>very</i> improbable that
there is a metaphysical chasm between the almost identical F(k<sub>0</sub>)
and F(k<sub>0</sub>+1), whereas there is metaphysical similarity
between F(1) and F(k<sub>0</sub>) – which allegedly belong to the
same kind, “triangle” and share the same essence. Yet, the
Aristotelian-Thomistic picture supported by Feser seems to imply that
F(k<sub>0</sub>) and F(1) belong in the same ontological category
‘triangle’, whereas F(k<sub>0</sub>+1) does not. Similar
considerations apply to the question as to whether there is a first
‘bad triangle’, or ‘not good triangle’, etc. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Now suppose that some intelligent,
scientifically advanced aliens evolved on a different planet – let
us call them ‘species #2’. We should <i>not </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">expect
that, in their language, they would</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">have
a colloquial word that has the </span></span><i>same</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">meaning
as the colloquial English word ‘triangle’, though maybe we should
expect a similar one. Assuming they do have a language similar in
structure to ours, s</span></span>ince they and humans probably had
to resolve similar problems along their evolutionary past, it seems
pretty plausible that they will have words in their language or
languages – let’s say a single language to simplify – <i>very</i>
<i>similar</i> in meaning to the colloquial words ‘triangle’, or
‘circle’, but we should not expect that the fuzzy transition
between ‘2-triangle’ (in their language) and ‘2-non-triangle’
were almost indistinguishable from the fuzzy transition between
‘triangle’ and ‘non-triangle’. In fact, it might well be that
some of the figures generated by the computer would be triangles, but
not 2-triangles. Members of species#2 would be able to tell the
difference between a 2-triangle and a figure that is not a 2-triangle
– at least, when the figures do not fall in the fuzzy transition
zone -, but that would not allow them to tell the difference between
triangles and non-triangles, which may well have quite a different
fuzzy transition zone – i. e., the fuzziness may well be in
different places. If they wanted to learn more about the difference
between triangles and non-triangles, they would need to study <i>humans,
</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">and
more precisely human language,</span></span> <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">human</span></span>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">minds,
etc. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Similarly, #2-aliens would know how to tell the
difference between 2-good 2-triangles and 2-bad 2-triangles. However,
in order to tell good triangles from triangles that are not good,
they would have to study <i>humans</i> – and not just triangles. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Why should we think such differences are
metaphysically possible, and even nomologically possible? </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Because it is metaphysically and even
nomologically possible that both their sensory apparatus and the way
their minds categorize objects in several respects could be are
different from ours. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">But moreover, there would be no good reason to
assume that even if metaphysically possible, something like the
scenario described above would be improbable. In fact, it’s rather
probable if there are intelligent, rational, talking aliens, since in
spite of the likelihood of convergent evolution and even the
probability that most if not all such aliens will have a word <i>like
</i>‘triangle’, there seems to be no way for evolution to make
the similarities in both the sensory apparatus and the associated
mental capacities between different intelligent species so vast as to
prevent the transition between triangles and non-triangles and
between their alien analogues to happen in different places. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">In fact, figures that look very similar to us
might look quite different to them, due to their different visual
system. They might things we do not. And whether something is a
triangle or not – or a good or a bad triangle - <i>does depend </i>on
the way it looks to a human with a normal sensory apparatus – not
to an alien. Surely, we would not say that the good, carefully drawn
triangle Feser was talking about is actually a bad triangle just
because some aliens with a much sharper visual system qualify it
negatively in their language and with respect to their concepts; i.
e., that might be a #2-bad #2-triangle, but still a good triangle. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Additionally, – and I think even more
importantly -, due to differences in their minds and categorizations,
even if, say, a figure F1’ on the screen looks to them as F1 looks
to us, and F2’ looks to them as F2 looks to us, it may well be that
F1 and F2 belong in the same category ‘triangle’ in English –
or in the same category in other human languages – but while F1’
belongs in their category ‘2-triangle’, F2’ does not. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">The upshot: there is objectivity in the sense
that in nearly all practical cases, <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">there
is an objective fact of the matter as to whether something is a
triangle, or as to whether a triangle is good or not. But it seems
probable that in some metaphysically and even nomologically possible
cases, there is no objective fact of the matter, and the transition
is fuzzy. Moreover, the classification of objects in triangles and
non-triangles, or in good and bad triangles, is, in a sense,
depending on human minds. Of course, that does not make it subjective
in the sense of the colloquial sense of expressions like ‘it’s a
subjective matter’. As I mentioned, there usually is an objective
fact of the matter as to whether something is a triangle, or a good
triangle. And to be absolutely clear – and to dispel a potential
misunderstanding - it is of course</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">not
the case that whether a figure is a good triangle – or a triangle
at all – depends on whether the human assessing whether it is so
believes it, of course. That claim would be mistaken in more than one
way. However, the whole classification of figures in triangles and
non-triangles, and of triangles in good and bad ones depends on how
the words are used by a human</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">linguistic
community, which in turn depends</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><i>on human minds. </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Whether
they also depend on human culture –</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">and
so, in addition to species-relative, they would be culture-relative –
depends also on human minds: some concepts seem to be human
universals in the sense that all human communities have them – e.
g., “morally wrong” -, and others are not. And in the case of
universal concepts, usually languages have a word for them. Maybe the
concept of a triangle is a human universal, or maybe not. I do not
know. But it’s extremely improbable that the colloquial concept of
a triangle is</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">an
</span></span><i>all-metaphysically-possible-rational-beings
</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">universal.
</span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">So,
our regular assessments about good and bad triangles, non-triangles,
etc., are generally correct, but the essentialism in the
Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical picture of the world is</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">not.
In a weaker</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">sense,
there is an essence of triangles, but given by our human word
‘triangle’ - and thus, by our human minds -, and furthermore, it
is fuzzy. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">But
let us now</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">turn
to living organisms. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>Feser: </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Any particular living thing can only be
described as an instance of a species, and a</font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">species itself can only be described in terms
of Aristotelian categoricals stating at least its general
characteristics. If a particular <i>S</i> happens not to be <i>F</i>
- if, for example, a particular cat is missing a leg—that does not
show that <i>S</i>’s are not <i>F</i> after all, but rather that
this particular <i>S</i> is a <i>defective</i> instance of an <i>S</i>.</font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">The claim about the cat is true, but the
conjunction of the assertions that an individual living organism can
be described only as a member of as a species and that species can
only be described in terms of Aristotelian particulars is very
probably false. In fact, both conjuncts are probably false. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Regarding the first conjunct, why only a member
of species? </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Biologists also distinguish between genera, and
between subspecies. And botanists also distinguish between varieties.
There are plenty of classifications in biology. If there is only one
on Aristotelian-Thomism (namely, species), does it match one of the
scientific ones? Is it something else entirely? </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Maybe this Aristotelian-Thomistic concept of
species is not related to the scientific one? </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
any event, let us leave the first conjunct aside, since there </span></font><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">might</span></i></font><font color="#000000">
</font><font color="#000000"><span style="font-weight: normal">be
some terminological misunderstandings, and let us focus on the second
conjunct - namely, that species “can only be described in terms of
Aristotelian categoricals stating at least its general
characteristics”. Let us consider a concrete case: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion">Cecil
the Lion</a>. Cecil was definitely a lion. His father was also a
lion. And so was his grandfather, and so on. However, Cecil’s most
recent common male ancestor with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)">Dolly
the Sheep</a> was surely not a lion. Let L(1) be Cecil, L(2) be
Cecil’s father, and generally, let L(k+1) be the father of L(k) for
all k ∈{1,…,n-1}, and let L(n) be the most recent male common
ancestor of Dolly and Cecil. If every individual is a member of a
species that can only be described in terms of Aristotelian
categoricals, it seems this would cause strict separations between
species, so that every individual belongs to one of them. If this is
so, then for every k ∈{1,…,n}, there is a (perhaps extinct)
species S(k) - each described in terms of Aristotelian categoricals -
such that L(k) is a member of the species S(k). Clearly, S(n)≠</span></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-weight: normal">S(1).
</span></font></font><font color="#000000"><span style="font-weight: normal">Therefore,
on the Aristotelian-Thomistic picture, it seems there is a minimum k
∈{1,…,n-1} for which S(k+1)≠</span></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-weight: normal">S(1).
Let k</span></font></font><font color="#000000"><sub><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-weight: normal">0
</span></font></sub></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-weight: normal">be
that minimum. It follows that </span></font></font><font color="#000000"><span style="font-weight: normal">L(k</span></font><font color="#000000"><sub><span style="font-weight: normal">0</span></sub></font><font color="#000000"><span style="font-weight: normal">+1)
was a member of the species S(k</span></font><font color="#000000"><sub><span style="font-weight: normal">0</span></sub></font><font color="#000000"><span style="font-weight: normal">+1)
which is not the same species as S(1) – i. e., he was not a lion,
if lions make up a species in this Aristotelian sense -, but fathered
a lion L(k</span></font><font color="#000000"><sub><span style="font-weight: normal">0</span></sub></font><font color="#000000"><span style="font-weight: normal">).
Yet, L(k</span></font><font color="#000000"><sub><span style="font-weight: normal">0</span></sub></font><font color="#000000"><span style="font-weight: normal">)
was almost certainly much more similar - genetically,
morphologically, physiologically, psychologically, behaviorally, etc.
- to L(k</span></font><font color="#000000"><sub><span style="font-weight: normal">0</span></sub></font><font color="#000000"><span style="font-weight: normal">+1)
than he was to Cecil – or, for that matter, to any living lion. </span></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Was
L(k</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><sub><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">0</span></span></sub></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">)
a very defective lion? <a href="#lion">[</a><a href="#lion">E</a><a href="#lion">]</a></span></span></font></span></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">The
point is that there is no good reason to think there was such an
individual.</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">In
fact, if human scientists</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">(coming
from a parallel universe, or whatever) had found L(k</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><sub><span style="font-style: normal">0</span></sub></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">)
and L(k</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><sub><span style="font-style: normal">0</span></sub></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">+1),
they would almost certainly</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">have
classified</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">them
as members of the same species, if they classified biological
organisms as we do. Would they have been in error? Are our
present-day classifications generally unreliable too? </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">It
seems probable that species are not </span></span><i>categorically</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">different
in an Aristotelian sense. In fact, that theory would seem to require
that there would be a ‘first lion’, and so – as we know from
observations so far - there would be almost no difference in terms of
genetics, psychology, behavior – of course, informed by psychology
-, shape, etc. between the first lion and his father, yet
metaphysically, there would be a leap</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">between
them, whereas there would be individuals sharing the same nature and
being far</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">more
different in any of the previously mentioned senses. That
metaphysical picture is </span></span><i>very</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">improbable.
Much</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">more
probably, what we classify as a species depends on what population of
organisms we are observing, and this applies to science as well as to
our colloquial terms. For example, since we observe present-day
lions, we have a term ‘lion’ that refers to some present-day
organisms, and organisms that are ‘similar enough’, in the sense
that they share with some present-day organisms a number of
properties, and of course the transition as we go back in time
between lions and non-lions is fuzzy. However, if, instead of the
lions we have observed, we had</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">encountered
individuals just like their ancestors 1200000 years ago, we would
have instead a term – say ‘lion*</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">’
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">-
that would pick a similar but different set of properties, and the
fuzzy transition would lie elsewhere, even if the referent of the
term would have some overlap with the referent of our term ‘lion’
in the actual world. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
if aliens were to visit Earth and study the planet’s biosphere, the
term in their language that referred to lions may well not have the
same referent as our term ‘lion’, even if a very significant
degree of overlap in their referents – in the actual world<a href="#Bookmark 44possibleworlds">[F]</a>
– is probable. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Does any of the above imply that there is no
such thing as objective judgments about species, either in the sense
or senses of ‘species’ in which biologists use the term, or in a
colloquial sense if there is one and they differ? </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">No,
not at all. There is an</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">objective
fact of the matter as to whether Cecil was a lion. He was. But for
that matter, if we decided to classify individuals not in species,
but in any way that we fancy (e. g., for a classifications of
animals,</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">the
first category is animals that have a Wikipedia article about them,
the second are those animals not in the first category and
accidentally killed by vehicles on some road, the third are those</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">not
in either of those two categories and eaten by people, etc., and we
make other categories like that such that the last one is the
category of those animals not in any of the previous ones), there
would be an objective fact of the matter as to whether or not an
individual belongs to one of those categories or another – well, at
least in nearly all</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">actual
cases, if we are precise enough when we come up with the rest of the
categories</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">in
our example. So, </span></span><i>objectivity</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">in
our categorization is metaphysically cheap</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">so
to speak. Note that this is similar with the case of artifacts:
purely for example, in at least nearly all cases, there is an
objective fact of the matter as to whether, say, a vehicle is a car,
or a truck, etc. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Does
this mean that our usual categorizations</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">of
biological organisms – whether colloquial or scientific -, while
objective in the sense described above, are</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">just
something we make up, without any restrictions imposed by the things
we study, just like the example I gave above? </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">As
before, the answer is negative. Our colloquial terms track features
that some organisms have in common, and those are features generally
salient to us because of the minds we have. Our scientific terms are
usually either a refinement of colloquial terms, or are introduced as
a means of studying features of organisms we find around us and that
are also</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">interesting
objects of study – pretty much to</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">any
human who studies those organisms, or close to that. So, the
categories are constrained both by what we find in the biosphere
around us, and by human psychology. While they are similar to a
categorization like “animals with a Wikipedia article”, etc., in
terms of objectivity, they are dissimilar in other respects. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">In
short, I am not suggesting any sort of radical skeptical view here.
Our usual terms do refer. Our scientific and even colloquial claims
about different organisms are usually objective, and often true –
even if less often in the colloquial case. They are also useful for
studying the world around us, etc.</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">What
seems very improbable is the Aristotelian-Thomistic picture,
particularly in light of gradual evolution. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">But is evolution as gradual as I have described
above? Or are there always distinct ‘jumps’, which might warrant
the claim that there are sharp metaphysical boundaries? </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">It
is an empirical matter, but the evidence clearly and very strongly
supports</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">gradualism
in the case of complex species – at least. On that note, let us
consider the evolution of polar bears from brown bears as an example:
</span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Polar
bears have</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">a
number of adaptations to the cold that are not present in brown
bears, and it is surely not the case that a female brown bear just
gave birth to full-fledged polar bear cubs. Indeed, we have observed
many</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">generations
of brown bears. Hybrids aside – more on those</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">below
-, in every case that has been observed, from two brown bears we got</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">cubs
that were</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">brown
bears - unsurprisingly. Some of the cubs might have a mutation</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">that
results</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">in
</span></span><i>slight </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">differences
from their parents, and some of the mutations sometimes</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><i>might </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">increase
their chances of reproducing, in some particular environment. But the
cubs will still grow up to look, behave, etc., almost like their
parents. In order to go from brown bears to polar bears, many steps
were</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">required,
and in every one of them, the offspring was surely</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">much
more similar to the</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">the
parents than to their descendants after many</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">generations.
</span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Are
polar bears somehow an exception in which evolution happened very
slowly? <br/>
Actually, they are an example of very</span></span></font></span><font color="#000000">
</font><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">rapid
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">evolution
for such a complex species. Yet, what is very rapid in evolutionary
terms, is still </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">so
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">slow
that the description of the gradual process that I gave above holds.
The following quote is</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">from
a study on polar bear evolution. <a href="#Bookmark 57polarbear">[</a><a href="#Bookmark 57polarbear">4]</a></span></span></font></span></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Assuming an average generation time of 11.35
years (Cronin et al., 2009; De Barba et al., 2010), the distinct
adaptations of polar bears may have evolved in less than 20,500
generations; this is truly exceptional for a large mammal. In this
limited amount of time, polar bears became uniquely adapted to the
extremities of life out on the Arctic sea ice, enabling them to
inhabit some of the world’s harshest climates and most inhospitable
conditions.</font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">So, it took at least about<span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">20000
generations to go from brown bears to polar bears, and that is</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><i>exceptionally fast</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">for
large mammals. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Granted,
the Aristotelian-Thomist might say that while there are like</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">20000
generations from brown bears to polar bears, there are in fact many
intermediate species, at least in the Aristotelian-Thomistic sense of
species that does not need to match usage by biologists. However,
this would miss the main point of the gradualism objection, which is
the fact that the members of one generation were extremely similar
from those in the next, and actually more similar to them than the
latter were to those several generations down the line. Positing many
Aristotelian-Thomistic species that do not match our concepts would
not seem to work, since there would still be big metaphysical jumps
where there is very little genetic, morphological, psychological,
etc., difference, and no metaphysical jumps where there is much
bigger difference. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">The
problem of gradualism holds</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">for
non-human mammals – and birds, and reptiles, and many other species
at least -, but it becomes particularly salient in the case of
humans, where the metaphysical leap</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">is
far</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">bigger
on Aristotelian-Thomism than in the other cases</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
– </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">a
matter I will address later in greater detail. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Perhaps, the Aristotelian-Thomist might suggest
considering each new trait resulting from a mutation or mutations a
new species, but that would not work for at least the following
reasons: </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">First,
there are plenty of adaptations (in different organisms, but
especially complex ones, like mammals) that occur gradually, and are
the result of many mutations over many generations, rather than a
single mutation. Considering every one of the tiny steps the
emergence of a new species would not seem reasonable, in light of our
usual concepts: it would imply that - for example - a brown bear
that, due to a mutation, tends to have a very slightly greater amount
of fat than her mother, is a new species. But given the differences
</span></span><i>within</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">species,
it would turn out that most of the species we regularly talk about
are actually many different species – in fact, single-individual
species, or close to that -, hybridizing pretty much every time they
breed. Again, that does not seem to be in line with the way we
normally talk. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Second,
new traits</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">often
do not result in new species, under any reasonable understanding of
the concept of ‘species’ that matches or approaches the way we
regularly talk. For example, some human groups have adaptations for
living in high altitudes, and others for digesting milk even when
they are adults, but that does not make them members of different
species. More and bigger adaptations would eventually result in
speciation, but then, that would take much longer...and still, there
would</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">no
specific, precise</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">amount
of change that would bring about the change from humans to some other
species. Rather, the transition would be – as usual – fuzzy. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Now,
polar bears and brown bears can - and sometimes do - mate</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">and
have fertile offspring. So, it might be suggested that they</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">belong
in the same species. However, this sort of objection is not an option
in the Aristotelian-Thomistic sense of species, for the following
reason: </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Lions
of any generation – for example - had the capacity to mate with
lions of the immediately previous generation, and leave fertile
offspring. But we can go back to before there were any lions, one
generation at a time. So, assuming that the capacity to mate and
leave fertile offspring implies belonging in the same
Aristotelian-Thomistic species, then by transitivity of being the
same Aristotelian species, we can go back from lions to, say, the
latest common ancestor between lions and mosquitoes, and then forward
to mosquitoes,</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">concluding
that mosquitoes and lions belong to the same Aristotelian-Thomistic</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">species</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
– </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">an
absurd result. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">In
short, that sort of objection does not work for the
Aristotelian-Thomist. Moreover, hybridization on its own might</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">be
a problem for Aristotelian-Thomism: the offspring of a female polar
bear and a male brown bear is not a brown bear or a polar bear. So,
what species</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">is
it? </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Still,
let us leave bears aside, and focus now on humans. </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">Feser
says that humans are ‘rational animals’, and considers that all
other species are not, and indicates a </span></font></span><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><i>radical
distinction</i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">between
humans and non-humans. For example: </span></font></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Feser</b></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
Hence while perception is a good for both non-human animals and human
beings, that perception in our case participates in our rationality
makes of it a different and indeed higher sort of good than that of
which non-human animals are capable. Other goods we share in common
with animals similarly participate in our rationality and are
radically transformed as a result. </span></span></font></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Now,
on Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, the goods depend on our
nature, and particularly the nature of our faculties. So, according
to this, the nature of our faculties would be radically transformed
as well. Indeed, this is what Feser says about our sexual faculties:
while he claims that they keep the reproductive purpose of other
animals, he ascribes to them a radical transformation. I will address
some of his claims about our sexual faculties in the next section,
but here, I would like to address the alleged radical transformation,
and argue that it seems </span></span></font></span><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">extremely</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">improbable,
given the gradual picture of evolution. Of course, the difference can
be huge after a very long time, but the problem is that when there is
only a very small difference even psychologically between
generations, a radical metaphysical difference seems very improbable.
</span></span></font></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">For
example, let us say that Lucy and her daughter Joan – just to pick
two names; there is no further meaning to them – are two of our
ancestors, at some point after the split between the lineage leading
to chimpanzees and bonobos, and the lineage leading to modern humans.
Given the almost zero genetic distance and the fact that they grew up
in essentially the same social group, the brains and <i>minds</i> of
Joan and Lucy were very probably extremely similar. In fact, Joan
would have been raised among her mother’s social group, learning
from them – by looking at their behavior and intuitively picking
things up or by being taught - things like what is safe to eat and
what isn’t, which animals are dangerous, how to communicate with
other members of the group in whatever language or proto-language
they had, and even the rules of behavior, tool-use and tool-making.
The point is that Joan and Lucy would be extremely similar not only
physiologically, morphologically, and genetically, but also
behaviorally and psychologically. The idea of a huge leap that would
render the functions of Joan’s faculties radically different from
those of her mother Lucy’s – or generally, that the nature of the
goods for Joan would be radically different from the nature of the
goods for Lucy – is extremely improbable. </font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>4.2.</b></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Goodness.
</b></span></font></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">In this section, I will continue to address
Feser’s claims about the teleology of organisms, in particular
focusing on the matter of goodness. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>Feser: </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">In
living things the sort of norm in question is, as Foot also notes,
inextricably tied to the notion of teleology. There are certain </span></span><i>ends</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">that
any organism must realize in order to flourish as the kind of
organism it is, ends concerning activities like development,
self-maintenance, reproduction, the rearing of young, and so forth;
and these ends entail a standard of goodness.</span></span></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Does</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">the
nature of an organism </span></span><i>entail </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">a
standard of goodness? </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Before
we address the matter, let us consider a color analogy. Surely, we
make objective statements of color very often. For example, if there
is a court case about whether a car driver</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">ran
a red traffic light, generally there is an objective a fact of the
matter as to whether the light was red when the car began to cross
the street (or some part of the car, if more precision is required).
Moreover, our statements ascribing color to objects are usually true.
</span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Now,
many other animals have visual systems that react to parts of the
electromagnetic spectrum considerably</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">differently</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">from
ours. For example, some animals can perceive wavelengths that we do
not</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">perceive,
and are ultraviolet or infrared. Some of those animals, in turn,
cannot perceive some of the wavelengths we perceive. So, we may
consider a hypothetical scenario in which intelligent agents also
have a different visual system. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 28species3"></a>
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">S5:
On a distant planet, an intelligent species evolved – say,
species#3. They have language, science, technology, and a visual
system somewhat similar to ours: they perceive color (or color-like,
or whatever the correct terminology is)</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">differences
between things in their environment – much like we do -, but their
perceptions are associated with considerably</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">different
ranges of wavelengths. In particular, some objects that look the same
to us color-wise do not look the same to them, and vice versa. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">That
scenario is clearly metaphysically possible. In fact, I would say it
is also nomologically possible, though this is not required for the
argument. But in species#3-language (but let’s say it’s a single
one to simplify), there would be no synonyms for the color words we
have in English, or the color words in any human language. They would
have words for #3-colors, but not for colors. Just as our color
vision tracks some properties in the world around us – reflective
properties and/or</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">dispositions
and/or</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">some
other properties, whatever the correct account of color is -, their
#3-color</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">vision
would track </span></span><i>other </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">properties,
and their language would</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">reflect</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">that.
Sometimes, two objects would be of the same #3-color but not the same
color, or vice versa. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Another
way to see this is as follows: suppose species#3 civilization was
already very advanced long ago, and some of those aliens visited</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">the
Earth 180 million years ago, in the Jurassic. It is extremely</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">improbable
that they would have learned the colors of any objects on Earth. They
would have been able to determine the #3-color properties of many
objects. They could have studied the visual systems of many animals
on Earth. But it is very improbable that there would have been
anything close enough to our own visual system to get the aliens to
detect colors. In fact, these</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">aliens
would not have even considered categories such as ‘red’ or</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
‘</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">green’,
but analogues. However, even if – though extremely</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">improbable
– there was on Earth something with a visual system similar enough
ours</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">180
million years ago, we just need to set an earlier date – say, 500
million years ago, during the Cambrian, and there is no way there was
anything close enough to us. Crucially,</span></span> <i>without
studying humans, or some animals close enough to humans, </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">there
is no way these very advanced aliens could have determined the color
of things, or even think of color. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">It
might be objected that #3-color would still be color, so the aliens
would learn some of the colors of objects – just not the colors we
talk about, but other colors we do not know about. However, </span></span><i>if</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">color
words are like that and #3-colors are colors, the point would be that
without studying humans – or some animals close enough to humans -,
the aliens would not have been able to learn that some of the things
they found on Earth were green, or red, etc. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">The
upshot is that while it seems very probable that</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">color
is in a real sense in the objects to which we ascribe colors </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">–
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">perhaps
some reflective properties, or some dispositions to have certain
effects, or whatever it is</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">-,
and our senses are tracking some real stuff in the world around us,
the </span></span><i>standard</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">of
color is not in the objects: that one is in </span></span><i>our</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">language,
in the meaning of our words, and we use those words because of the
visual system and minds</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">we
have, so in the end</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">the
standard</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">is
in </span></span><i>us humans </i><span style="font-variant: normal">–
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">though
there is room for different classifications of colors even in human
languages, for the most part our visual systems are roughly the same
color-wise. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Let us now turn to goodness. At this point, it
is useful to conceptually distinguish at least three different senses
in which we can evaluate goodness. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">G1: What is good. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">G2: What is good for some agent A. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">G3: What would make an agent A not defective
and/or a good example of some species S(A) of which A is a member. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">It
is a property of individual organisms to be defective or not, healthy
or not, etc. However, and</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">similarly
to the color case, it seems probable that the </span></span><i>standards</i>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">are</span></span>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">not
in individual organisms or in their nature, but in </span></span><i>our
</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">minds,
and in that manner, in our language. Now, if intelligent aliens with
language evolved on another planet, I think they would probably</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">have
words with referents very similar to our words ‘illness’ and
‘health’, ‘properly functioning’, or ‘defect’, in the
sense that there would actually be a vast overlap between the
referents of some of our words and the alien close counterparts. In
fact, I think their assessments – and their language – would
likely be much more similar to ours than in the color case. Yet, we</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">should</span></span>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">not</span></span>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">expect
the </span></span><i>same</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">meaning,
or referent. One reason for that is that the </span></span><i>orders
</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">would
probably be</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">somewhat</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">different:
To</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">give
a simplified example, it might happen be that individuals A and B –
say, two lions – both have 20 defects and 20 #3-defects (in the
language of species#3 in the previous example), and even that each of
the 20 defects is a #3-defect and vice versa, but overall, A is
somewhat more defective than B – he has somewhat worse defects -,
whereas B is somewhat more #3-defective than A – he has somewhat
#3-worse #3-defects. There appears to be no way evolution would
result in uniformity across the universe if there are many planets
like ours, even if a lot of similarity is to be expected. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">So, even in the case of G3 above, it is
probably nomologically possible – and hence, metaphysically
possible – that there would be aliens with a different language,
talking about different stuff - even if very similar to human
language -, so their (analogous) standard would be different. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">The upshot is that probably, the <i>standard</i>
<i>of goodness </i>in the sense of G3 is <i>not</i> in the nature of
things, but in our human minds, even if the illness, or defect, or
badness, is in the individual organism, event, etc. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">The
difference</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">probably
would increase (I would say significantly) when it comes to judgments
about something analogous to what is good or bad in the sense of G1
above. But in any case, the point is that there could be differences
too. For example, let us consider the following scenario: </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 29squidandelephants"></a>
<font color="#000000">S6: On a distant planet, there are intelligent
aliens with language, science, technology, etc. They evolved from
something like squid. They have evaluative language, and they make
judgments about what is alien-squid-good or bad, alien-squid-better,
etc. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">On a second planet, there are intelligent
aliens with language, science, technology, etc, also with language
like that, but they evolved from something like elephants. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Now,
in a situation like that, it would seem improbable that
alien-squid-bad things – events, states of affairs, objects, etc. -
are the same as bad things or the same as alien-elephant-bad thing,
even if there is wide overlap in the referents in the actual
world<a href="#Bookmark 44possibleworlds">[F]</a>. For example, if
scientists from both species come to Earth today and they see a pride
of very hungry</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">lions
trying to bring down an adult elephant, it may well be that the
elephant-like aliens </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">truthfully
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">reckon
it would be alien-elephant-better if she escapes and the lions starve
to death, whereas the squid-like aliens truthfully reckon it is
alien-squid better – or alien-squid-neutral - if they bring her
down and ear her – while she’s still alive for a considerably
long time, since lions</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">do
not have the means to</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">swiftly
kill an adult elephant. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Why should we think that that is likely? </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">The meaning of words is determined by usage,
and their usage would depend on their minds. Given the big
differences between their minds, and in particular between some of
the things – events, states of affairs, etc. - that individuals of
the different species generally value positively or negatively, one
should expect different meanings and referents in their words as
well. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">So,
if those squid-like or elephant-like aliens had come to Earth in the
Jurassic rather than today (for example), then – and just as in the
color case -, they would not have been able to figure</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">whether
any of the events or states of affairs, animals, events, etc., that
they encountered on Earth</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">were
good or bad events, states of affairs, things, etc., even if they
generally</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">would
have been able to ascertain what was alien-squid(or elephant)-good or
alien-squid(or elephant)-bad, and there would have been a big overlap
between those and what is good or bad. In fact, in order to learn
about good or bad things – in the sense of G1 above -, </span></span><i>they
would have had to study</i><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><i>humans
- </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">or
at least, some non-human animals</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">that
are relevantly close enough to humans; maybe bonobos or chimpanzees</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">-
but nothing living on Earth in the Jurassic would have given them any
information about good or bad events, states of affairs, etc. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Similarly, there probably would be some
differences between goodness in the sense of G2 and an alien analogue
– though I think probably the difference would be much smaller than
in the G1 case, but that is a side issue. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">None
of this is is not a problem for our ordinary assessments about
whether something is a defect, or an illness, or whether something
that happened is a good or a bad thing, event, state of affairs,</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">and/or
bad or good for an individual organism</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">etc.,
just as alien colors are</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">not
a problem for our ordinary assessments about the colors of things. In
particular, there usually is an objective fact of the matter
regarding questions about G1, G2 or G3 above, just as there is in the
case of color questions. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">However, the Aristotelian-Thomistic
metaphysical picture seems to be wrong on this as well: the <i>standards</i>
are in us, even if the goodness, badness, defect, etc., are in the
individuals, things, events, etc., we talk about. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 38rationality"></a>
<font color="#000000"><b>4.3. Rationality and morality.</b></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">In
his defense of the perverted faculty</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">argument,
Feser makes a number of claims about reason and morality. In
particular, he</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">seems
to base morality on rationality – following Aristotelian-Thomism.
That seems to be</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">misguided.
Humans have a sense of right and wrong, which is the result of
evolution and came gradually from other primates that had</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">a
somewhat different moral or</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">proto-moral
or moral-like sense – whatever the correct semantics of the terms
are. But if aliens evolved on different planets, they might – and
they metaphysically possibly could, and even probably would -</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">not
have </span></span><i>morality</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">,
even if they were</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">rational,
and they could</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">talk,
build spaceships, etc., and even if they had</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">a</span></span>
<i>close</i> <i>analogue to morality</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">.
This is without even considering AI with superhuman intelligence and
capacity to reason, which might be radically different and have no
analogue to morality, at least not an analogue to the idea of moral
obligations. </span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">But Feser says: </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>Feser: </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Not only the content of our moral obligations
but their obligatory force are thus determined by natural teleology.</font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">This
metaphysical picture seems to imply that any rational agents – like
any advanced aliens – would have moral obligations – rather than,
say, alien-squid-moral obligations -, and that it would be irrational
on their part to behave immorally. Neither implication</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">appears
plausible,</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">but
leaving that aside, on the Aristotelian-Thomistic view, the aliens’
moral</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">obligations
would be determined by what is good </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">for
them. </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
might lead to all sorts of horrific moral obligations. For example,
it might be good for a squid-like alien</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">stranded
on Earth in 50 CE to hunt and eat humans if they’re available, and
it might even be bad for such an alien </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
hunt and eat humans. But it would be a bad thing if it did hunt the
humans, and surely it would not be </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">morally
obligatory</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">for
the alien</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
do so just because it would be bad for it not to do it. </span></span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Granted,
the squid-like aliens are a hypothetical species only. But apart from
the fact that they may very well be plenty of advanced aliens
somewhere out there that, even if not squid-like, are different from
us in the senses that are relevant in this context, these sorts</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
aliens seem to be metaphysically possible, and Feser’s claims in
this context are about metaphysical possibility and necessity. </span></span></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Still, let us grant for the sake of the
argument that the objections I just raised in this subsection do not
succeed, and let us take a look at the way Feser’s explanation of
the grounds of moral obligation. With a number of qualifications,
Feser explains the grounds of moral obligations, according to the
Aristotelian-Thomistic view he adheres to. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Feser</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">:
The hypothetical imperative (1) </span></span><i>If I want what is
good for me then I ought to pursue what realizes my natural ends and
avoid what frustrates them</i><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">is
something whose truth follows from the metaphysical analysis sketched
above. By itself, it does not give us a categorical imperative
because the consequent will have force only for someone who accepts
the antecedent. But that (2) </span></span><i>I do want what is good
for me</i><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">is
something true of all of us by virtue of our nature as human beings,
and is in any case self-evident, being just a variation on Aquinas’s
fundamental principle of natural law. These premises yield the
conclusion (3) </span></span><i>I ought to pursue what realizes my
natural ends and avoid what frustrates them</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">.
It does have categorical force because (2) has categorical force, and
(2) has categorical force because it cannot be otherwise given our
nature. Not only the content of our moral obligations but their
obligatory force are thus determined by natural teleology.</span></span></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It
should be clear by now that (1) is false due to several
counterexamples, like those</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
Scenarios <a href="#Bookmark 25dictatorship">S2</a>, <a href="#Bookmark 20rogueAI1">S3</a>,
<a href="#Bookmark 21rogueAI2">S4</a>, the case of <a href="#Bookmark 24distortingglasses">distor</a><a href="#Bookmark 24distortingglasses">tion
goggles</a>, and others. Examples like that also show that there are
metaphysically and nomologically possible situations – and of
course, actual ones, but we do not need that in this context – in
which if a human being has no psychological defect and wants to do
what is good for him, then a</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">rational
and morally permissible – or even morally praiseworthy - course of
action would be for him to use a faculty in a way contrary to its
function or natural end. Moreover, sometimes it would be irrational
on his part to </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">fail
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
do so. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
(1) is false. Let us now</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">turn
to (2). Do I want what is good for me? In a qualified manner, which
does not seem to be enough for the premise. To see why, let us first
consider an analogy with justice. Do I want that that justice be
done? </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
a sense, yes, but that is conditional to ‘justice’ being similar
enough to what </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">I
generally reckon</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">justice
is. For example, there are Christians who believe that all human
beings deserve infinite torment in Hell – even if they believe
Christians will be spared. Of course, I find all of that ridiculously
improbable, but assuming for the sake of the argument that that would
be a just punishment for all human beings, I do not want justice to
be done. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
according to some Christians, human beings who fail to believe that
Jesus is their lord and savior until they die (under conditions that
vary with the Christian; e. g., that the Gospel was preached to them,
etc.), </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">will</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">be
punished with eternal torment, and that is </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">just,
deserved </span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">punishment.
Now, it is pretty clear to me that such punishment would be
undeserved to an absurd degree. However, assuming hypothetically and
for the sake of the argument that those Christians are correct about
the justice of the punishment and about who will be punished, it
remains the case that I do not </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">want
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">people
to be punished for that reason. Of course, under that assumption,
that </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">would
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">happen
regardless of what I want, but I do not want it. In fact, if the
referent of “just” happened to be like that sort of religion
claims, I do not in general want justice to be done – rather, that
would very much depend on the specific case at hand. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
think my position on this is not unusual. When people say they want
justice, they say</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">it
with implicit qualifications. Their qualifications may well be very
different</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">from
mine – in the cases of some people, they</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">surely
are</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">-,
but I think most people who would agree to ‘I want justice to be
done’ are not implying </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">–
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">for
example - that if justice</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">involves
eternal torment</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">for
every human being who has ever lived</span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">,
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">they
want </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
happen. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Going back to the case at hand, do I want
whatever is good for me? </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
a sense yes, but this is also a qualified ‘yes’, similar to the
sense in which I want justice done. In particular, I am assuming that
what is good for me – even if I do not always know it – is
similar enough to what </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">I
generally reckon </span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
good for me. In general, I would make the following assertion instead
of (2): </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 50me(2)"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">(2)’’(From
my perspective): I do not always know what is good for me, but
whatever it is, I generally</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">want
what is good for me, as long as that ‘whatever it is’ is
qualified as follows: I believe my ordinary assessments about what is
good for a person – and, in particular, for me – are not
</span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">radically
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">wrong,
as they would be if, say, some metaphysical and/or metaethical
theories and/or religions were true. So, if the ‘whatever it is’
happens to be radically different from my ordinary assessments of
goodness, then in order to tell whether I want what is good for me I
would need to address the matter on a case-by case basis. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
particular, under the hypothesis that it is never good for any human
being to use a faculty in a manner contrary to its function or
natural end, then it is not the case that I always want what is good
for me, no matter the circumstances. For example, if – given the
situation - the achievable</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">alternative
to using</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">a
faculty in such a</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">manner
by, say, smoking “to excess”, is to be tortured to death but –
by assumption – that is the best for me, then I no longer want what
is best for me: I would much rather smoke “to excess”, and avoid
the torture to death, even if the course of action I choose is bad
for me for some obscure metaphysical reason that has no practical
consequences. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
moreover, there does not need to be a threat. Granting that</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">it
is bad for me (due to the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics of the
good), I would still agree to wear distortion goggles for a few
minutes, given adequate, non-coercive incentives. For instance, I
would agree if I’m at a science fare, a friend is doing the
experiments and asks me to participate, and I have the time. I would
not have any inclination at all to reject something simply because it
is bad for me because of some obscure metaphysical fact (we assume
that it is a fact, that is), but has no actual impact on my life that
I value negatively, by my own evaluative function. True, under those
metaphysical assumptions, my evaluative function would seem to have a
defect, but – as in the case of justice or what is good for me - my
positively valuing having no defects is also subject to some implicit
assumptions about</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">what
is or might be a defect. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><b>5. Our
sexual faculties. </b></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">In his
defense of the perverted faculty argument, Feser also makes some
claims about the end of the sexual faculties – both in humans and
in other animals: </font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><b>Feser</b>:
That sex considered from a purely biological point of view exists for
the sake of procreation is uncontroversial. This is true even though
people have sexual relations for various reasons other than
procreation, since we are talking about nature’s ends here, not
ours. In particular, it is true even though sex is pleasurable and
human beings and animals are typically drawn to sex precisely because
of this pleasure. For giving pleasure is not the end of sex, not that
for the sake of which sex exists in animals. Rather, sexual pleasure
has as its own natural end the getting of animals to engage in sexual
relations, so that they will procreate.</font></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">It is at
least controversial that there is a function or ‘natural end’
that is not biological in the case of humans, though it <i>might</i>
be a matter of terminology. But let us leave that aside. What is not
controversial is that one of the functions of the sexual organs –
and our sexual faculty or faculties - is reproduction. Yet, that does
not imply or suggest that that is <i>the only </i>function of the
sexual organs or the sexual faculty, and that there are no other
functions. There might be more functions even in some (or many)
non-human animals, even if reproduction is the main one. This is so
not only for humans, but for non-human animals as well. </font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">For
example, same-sex sex in bonobos may well have non-reproductive
functions too, like a function of reducing conflict, or reinforcing
alliances between females, or both. Indeed, what the evidence so far
indicates that same-sex relations – involving bisexual individuals
– are common among bonobos, both in captivity and in the wild<a href="#Bookmark 58wildbonobos">[5]</a>
<a href="#Bookmark 33bonobo2captive">[6]</a>. Now, it </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">might
</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">be
that their same-sex behavior is a defect in</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">their
sexual function, but it might not be so, and by looking at how common
that behavior is, there seems to be a good chance that it is not a
defect – sometimes, defects </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">might</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">be
prevalent in a species over non-defective traits, but that is not the
most common situation. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Similarly, masturbation may also have a
function in some species – say, to reduce stress, or keep the
sexual organs in good health in some cases, increasing fertility. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">In humans too, it might be that sexual organs
and the sexual faculty or faculties have one or more non-reproductive
functions in humans that come from our non-human ancestors, perhaps
involving masturbation or same-sex relations in some circumstances.<span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">Note
that this might be so even if one granted</font></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">for
the sake of the argument that there was such a radical metaphysical
chasm</font></span><span style="text-decoration: none"> </span><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">between
humans and non-humans: even a radical transformation in the functions
of the sexual organs and/or faculties would not</font></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">need
to make the all of the already existing functions other than
reproduction go away, if there were any such functions. </font></span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="text-decoration: none">Now,
I am not claiming that there are such functions. I am saying that
there might be – though I think whether there are such functions is
not </span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>morally</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
important in this context. </span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">Let us
address another point: </font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Feser:
</b></span><span style="text-decoration: none">And we’re built in
such a way that sexual arousal is hard to resist and occurs very
frequently, and such that it is very difficult to avoid pregnancies
resulting from indulgence of that arousal. The obvious conclusion is
that the natural end of sex is (in part) not just procreation, but
procreation in large numbers. Mother Nature clearly wants us to have
babies, and lots of them.</span></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none">That tells
us that </span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>an aspect of
our nature </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">inclines us
to have lots of sex. Similarly, we can take a look at our gustatory
and olfactory senses, and conclude that some aspect of our nature
inclines us to not only eat sugary meals, but to eat a lot of them:
after all, sugary meals are often hard to resist, taste great, and so
on. We have that inclination because in the ancestral environment,
seizing the opportunity to eat that sort of thing would have been
conducive overall to reproductive success, even if it would generally
be bad for us in an environment in which there is a lot of sugar
available. </span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none">So, given
the available evidence, the proper assessment is that </span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>some
aspect </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">of our nature –
rather than “Mother Nature” in an unqualified manner - makes us
inclined to eat a lot of sugary food. But in some – many -
circumstances, it would be a bad idea to “let nature take its
course” when it comes to sugar. Better options are refraining from
eating a lot of sweet things, or eating artificial sweeteners –
which allow us to get some of the pleasure of eating sugary foods,
without some of its negative effects. </span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000">Back to the question of having lots of babies,
a very probable assessment from the available evidence is that in the
ancestral environment in which humans evolved, having many children –
at least, many by today’s averages in developed countries - was a
trait selected for. Many of those children would have died of
starvation, disease, etc., but having many would have increased the
odds that some might reproduce. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none">But while
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>an aspect of our nature
</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">makes us inclined
toward behaviors which, lacking contraception, would result in a
numerous offspring, that does not tell us that it is good for us
under all conditions, or even under most present-day conditions, to
have many children, or even to have any children at all – just as
our inclination for sugary foods does not tell us that such foods are
good for us under all conditions, etc. </span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none">In fact, it
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>should</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
be clear that it would be bad for at least some – many - of us to
have many babies – babies who, predictably, if they did not die
very early would grow into malnourished children, also with little
education and little parental care due to lack of available time, as
both parents would have to spend most of their time just getting
enough food on the table to keep all of those children alive, even
assuming they are both present. Sure, abstinence from sex is an
option, at least under reasonable conditions of freedom. But for many
people, having a sex life results in a happier life, and happiness is
an important human good. </span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000">In general, our natural inclinations do not
always map to moral obligations, or even to what is good for us –
which is of course a matter different from that of moral obligations,
but even if we leave that aside. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000">Of course, knowing human psychology can be
useful as a tool to better know and understand what is good for us,
and even our moral obligations. However, not all normal human
psychological inclinations are part of our moral capacities, or lead
to morally better behavior, and not all normal human psychological
inclinations are something it is a good idea to follow in present-day
circumstances, at least for many humans who have no defects in the
relevant capacities. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000">To finish this section, I would like to leave
aside for a moment the question of the ends of our faculties, and
focus on a claim about the consequences: </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Feser:
</b></span><span style="text-decoration: none">So, nature’s taking
its course thus seems to leave mothers and offspring pretty helpless,
or at any rate it would do so if there weren’t someone ordained by
nature to provide for them. But of course there is such a person,
namely the father of the children.</span></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none">Actually,
if “nature takes its course”, mothers would in plenty of cases be
pretty helpless </span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>even
with the assistance of the father or fathers</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">,
given that their resources would also be too limited, and so </span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>the
fathers too would be pretty helpless</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">.
So was the case in the past for many people, and so is the case for
many even today. </span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none">If people
generally have many children – as </span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>some
</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">of their natural
inclinations would lead them to - , plenty of children would still –
and </span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>do</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
still – grow in situations of dire poverty, hunger, lack of
education, etc., even in those cases in which the father of all or
some of the children is around. In fact, </span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>as
a predictable</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>consequence of the lack
of use of contraceptives – because they’re not available or by
choice - and a lot of sex – letting “Nature” take its course -,</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
millions of children are born who will routinely fail to achieve the
higher goods Feser talks about, and will suffer from hunger, all
sorts of infectious disease, poor health in general and in particular
poor mental development, and so on. With more contraception, of
course there would be fewer children, with a good chance of living on
average much happier, healthier lives, with more education and far
better chances of flourishing. Many people want that – for example
- for the children they already have - rather than having more
children and making life worse or even much worse for the ones they
have –, and also want to have a good sex life with their partner or
spouse – rather than abstinence and less happiness. </span></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">In
short, it seems pretty clear to me that contraception can be and is</font></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">a
good thing for many people, and this is so not only in metaphysically
possible but unrealistic scenarios, but in millions of ordinary
cases.</font></span></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>6. Conclusion. </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">In his defense of the perverted faculty
argument, Feser makes claims that imply a radical departure from
common sense judgments of morality and rationality. Additionally, he
bases some of his key points on a metaphysical theory that, given the
available evidence and reason, is very probably false, even on some
of its most crucial features. </font>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><br/>
<br/>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>Notes. </b></font>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="functionnotend"></a>
<font color="#000000">[A] I would call it a function, not a ‘natural
end’, and of course I disagree with Aristotelian-Thomistic
metaphysics. But I don’t want to focus on the terminology at this
point. </font>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 16possibleAI"></a><a name="Bookmark 16possible AI"></a>
<font color="#000000">[B] There is no stipulation that the AI is
conscious, or in any way has a mind, or that it does not. Thus,
neither the impossibility of conscious superintelligent (i. e. with
superhuman intelligence) AI nor the impossibility of unconscious
superintelligent AI would, on its own, block this scenario. </font>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">Moreover, if one does not believe that all AI
with superhuman intelligence is metaphysically possible (but why
not?), one may instead assume it’s advanced aliens from another
planet who invaded the Earth and control the robots. If one believes
that </font><font color="#000000"><i>that</i></font><font color="#000000">
is also metaphysically impossible (but why?), one may instead
stipulate the ruler is an evil, sadistic, psychopathic human being,
who has robots and accomplices to enforce his evil rules. One way or
another, scenarios like these in the relevant sense – i. e.,
regarding the rationality of smoking “to excess” - are surely
metaphysically possible. </font>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 48possiblemethods"></a><a name="Bookmark 19cloning"></a>
<font color="#000000">[C] If one does not believe that those methods
are metaphysically possible (but why not?), one may instead stipulate
that the AI uses artificial insemination and forced impregnation. It
takes eggs from human females – by force -, and sperm cells from
human males who either cooperate – some or all under threat -, or
do not cooperate but the sperm is extracted by force, to make more
human embryos, which it forcibly implants into women, etc. There are
plenty of metaphysically possible variants one can choose from. </font>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 43printing"></a>
<font color="#000000">[D] It might be suggested that, for some
reason, the images on the screen do not qualify as triangles and
somehow paper is needed. But that would go against our common usages
of the words. Of course, triangles on a computer screen are still
triangles, and can be good or bad triangles, etc. But in any case,
one can stipulate that the triangles are printed – which is
metaphysically possible for sure. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="lion"></a>
<font color="#000000">[E] Someone might suggest that while there is a
species S(1) of which Cecil is a member, it does not match the
referent of the word ‘lion’. However, this would not block my
objection: Since L(n) is not a member of S(1), the argument goes
through just as well, and we can just say ‘S(1)’ instead of
‘lion’ throughout. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 44possibleworlds"></a>
<font color="#000000">[F] Talk of possible worlds is not essential
here, or anywhere else in this essay. We can just talk about what
actually happens, is the case, etc., what possibly happens, is the
case, etc., and make essentially the same arguments. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000"><b>References. </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 1 link a perverted faculty"></a><a name="bib-publisher-row"></a>
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-weight: normal">[1] Feser,
Edward, </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">Neo Scolastic
Essays</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal">, South Bend,
Indiana. St. Augustine's Press. [2015] One can find a link at:
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/06/love-and-sex-roundup.html</span></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; border: none; padding: 0cm; line-height: 200%; orphans: 2; widows: 2; background: #eaf3ff"><a name="Bookmark 55australia"></a>
<cite><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#222222"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="letter-spacing: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[2]
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/people-in-antarctica/health</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></cite></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; border: none; padding: 0cm; line-height: 200%; orphans: 2; widows: 2; background: #eaf3ff"><a name="Bookmark 54appendix1"></a>
<cite><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#222222"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="letter-spacing: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[3]
See, for example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29503124, </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></cite>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 57polarbear"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[4]
Liu, S., Lorenzen, E. D., Fumagalli, M., Li, B., Harris, K., Xiong,
Z., Zhou, L., Korneliussen, T. S., Somel, M., B</span></span></font></font></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">abbitt,
C., Wray, G., Li, J., He, W., Wang, Z., Fu, W., Xiang, X., Morgan, C.
C., Doherty, A., O'Connell, M. J., McInerney, J. O., Born, E. W.,
Dalén, L., Dietz, R., Orlando, L., Sonne, C., Zhang, G., Nielsen,
R., Willerslev, E., … Wang, J. (2014), </span></span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">Population
genomics reveal recent speciation and rapid evolutionary adaptation
in polar bears,</span></i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Cell,
157(4), 785-94. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%">
<font color="#000000">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285632090_Bonobo_sex_and_society</font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 58wildbonobos"></a><a name="Bookmark 32wildbonobos"></a>
<font color="#000000"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">[5]
Brand, Colin & J. White, Frances & Thompson Handler, Nancy &
Hickmott, Alexana & Boose, Klaree. (2018). </span></span><i>Adaptive
functions of GG rubbing among female bonobos (Pan paniscus) at
Lomako, DRC</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324598086_Adaptive_functions_of_GG_rubbing_among_female_bonobos_Pan_paniscus_at_Lomako_DRC</span></span></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%"><a name="Bookmark 59captivebonobos"></a><a name="Bookmark 33bonobo2captive"></a>
<font color="#000000">[6] De Waal, F. (2006). <i>Bonobo, sex and
society</i>. Scientific American. 16. 14-21.
10.1038/scientificamerican0606-14sp. </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><br/>
<br/>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 200%"><br/>
<br/>
</p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-30031807313600624382018-02-27T14:33:00.000-08:002018-02-27T19:55:04.434-08:00An Aristotelian Argument: A Reply To Edward Feser.<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 5.1.6.2 (Linux)"/>
<meta name="created" content="2017-12-02T22:06:38.030064604"/>
<meta name="changed" content="2018-02-27T19:32:11.279253189"/>
<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
a:link { so-language: zxx }
a.western:visited { so-language: en-US }
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><b>1.
Introduction. </b></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">In
the first chapter of his book “Five Proofs of the Existence of
God”</span></font><a class="western" href="#five proofs"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">[1]</font></a><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">,
Edward Feser gives an Aristotelian Argument for the existence of God.
In this essay, I will argue that even </span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">granting
that </span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">there
is </span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">a
purely actual cause</span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">,
</span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">Feser’s
argument fails to establish that it’s unique, </span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">omnipotent,
</span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">omniscient,
or a morally good agent. Furthermore, I will argue that even granting
for the sake of the argument that there is a unique, omnipotent,
omniscient purely actual cause, Feser’s argument fails to establish
that it is a morally good agent, whereas a different argument –
</span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">that
I give elsewhere - </span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">establishes
that is it not so. </span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><b><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">2</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">.
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">U</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">niqueness.
</span></span></b></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">Feser
argues that a purely actual cause must be unique, because two
different </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">things</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
of the same kind </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">are
differentiated by </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">having
one or more differences in their </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">perfection</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">s
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">or
privation</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">s</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">,
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">but
the first cause has no privation</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">s</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
and is maximal</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">ly
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">perfect.
</span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">A</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">ccording
to Feser, a privation is “the absence of some feature a thing would
naturally require so as to be complete. </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">It
involves the failure to realize some </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">potential</span></span></i></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
inherent in a thing.</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">”,
and he says that something is perfect if “it has actualized its
potentials and is without privations”. </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">At
this point, one could raise an objection to Feser’s claims about
privations and perfections,</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
but here I intend to raise a different objection, so </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
will </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">grant
for the sake of the argument that something is perfect if it</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
has actualized its potentials and is without privations </span></span></span></span></font></font><a class="western" href="#Aristotle"><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[a]</span></u></span></span></font></font></a><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></span></span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">My
objection to Feser’s argument for </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">uniqueness
</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
the purely actual cause – granting for the sake of the argument
that there is at least one purely actual cause - </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
that things of </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">different</span></span></i></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
kinds can be distinguished by features </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">other
than </span></span></i></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">unrealized
potentials, and Feser’s </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">argument</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
fail</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">s</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
to establish that there </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">a
unique </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">kind</span></span></i></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
of </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">purely
actual causes</span></span></span></span></font></font><a class="western" href="#Aristotle"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">[a]</font></a><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></span></span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">N</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">ote
that in the case of causes that are not purely actual, that is how
things go:</span></span></span></span></font></font><a class="western" href="#Aristotle"><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[a]</span></u></span></span></font></font></a><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">For
example, </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">an
electron and a </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">neutrino</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
do not </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">need</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
to be distinguished </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">because
of </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">differences
in </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">their
</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">unactualized
potentials</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Even
if all electrons </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">and</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
all neutrinos have some unrealized potentials, it is not the case
that </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">an
electron can be distinguished from a neutrino only by</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
unrealized potentials. They </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">can
be</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
distinguished by having different </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">realized
</span></span></i></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">potentials</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Similarly,
a mosquito, a tapeworm and a lion are distinguished by many features
</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">other
than</span></span></i></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
unrealized potential</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">s,
even if they also have unrealized potentials</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
But Feser’s argument does not show that the number of kinds of
purely actual causes – unlike causes that are not purely actual -
is one. It </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">only
</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">establishes
that there cannot be more than one purely actual cause</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">s</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
the same kind – </span></span></i></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">a
result that is </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">compatible
with </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">there</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
being </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">two,
a few or very </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">many
</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">purely
actual causes, one of each kind. </span></span></span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">G</span></span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">ranted,
Feser argues for a purely actual cause on the basis of hierarchical
considerations, and it might be argued that on that basis, it can be
established that there is only one kind. </span></span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
might or might not be so, but in this context, in any case it </span></span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">would
have to be argued for, </span></span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
it is </span></span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">not
clear. For example, there might be some purely actual causes
actualizing different not purely actual things, with different and
separated hierarchies, etc. </span></span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Now,
</span></span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">I’m
not suggesting that this </span></span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></span></i></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">so
– in fact, I don’t even believe in purely actual causes -, but
rather, I’m arguing that Feser’s argument fails to rule out such
alternatives to uniqueness, among others. </span></span></span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><b>2.
Omnipotence and omniscience.</b></font></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Feser’s
argument in support of the omnipotence of the first cause uses the
premise that the first cause is unique. But as I have argued above,
</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">his</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
argument for uniqueness fails. And since he’s not established
uniqueness, Feser has not established omnipotence, either. </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Similarly,
Feser’s argument for omniscience is based on uniqueness, and for
that reason – </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">at
least -</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
it </span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">does
not succeed</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">.</span></span></span></span></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">
</span></span></span></span></font></font><a class="western" href="#omnipotence"><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[</span></u></span></span></font></font></a><a class="western" href="#omnipotence"><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">b</span></u></span></span></font></font></a><a class="western" href="#omnipotence"><font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">]</span></u></span></span></font></font></a></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">F</span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">rom
now on, </span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
will however grant for the sake of the argument that </span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">there
is a unique, omnipotent, omniscient, purely actual cause</span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
and </span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">will
argue that even then, Feser’s argument fails to establish that the
cause is a morally good agent, or indeed that it is morally good in
the sense that would be relevant in this case. </span></span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><b><span lang="en-US">3</span><span lang="en-US">.
</span><span lang="en-US">G</span><span lang="en-US">ood mosquitoes. </span></b></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">Feser
</span><span lang="en-US">states: </span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">Consider
further that a thing is good, in a general sense, to the extent that
it realizes the potentials inherent in it as the kind of thing it is,
and bad to the extent that it fails to realize them.</font></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">From
that, he concludes that a purely actual cause of the world, which has
no potential, is </span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">fully
good. </span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">L</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">et’s
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">consider</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
what it is to be </span></span><span lang="en-US"><i>good </i></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">in
this context. </span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">For
example, a</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
good mosquito would be one that realizes the potentials inherent in
it as a member of the kind “mosquito”. But then again, not being
</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i>a
</i></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i>morally
good </i></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i>person</i></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i>
</i></span></font><a class="western" href="#agent"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">[c]</span></span></font></a><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i>
</i></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">is
not a</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">n
unrealized potential of the </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
mosquito. It’s not part of </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">the
mosquito’s </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">potential
to be </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">a
</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">morally
good </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">person</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">,
in the usual sense of the expression “morally good </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">person</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">”.
</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">More
broadly, it is not part of the potential of a mosquito to be a
morally good agent, where “agent” is used in a broad sense, so as
to encompass persons but also </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">any
</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">multi-person
substances </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">that
might exist </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">–
</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">assuming
that that is coherent </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">-</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">,
or intelligent aliens </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">who
are psychologically vastly different from humans - regardless of
whether they </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">would
properly be q</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">ualif</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">ied
</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">as
persons -, etc. </span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">N</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">ow,
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">it
might be suggested that in </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">the
case of rational beings, it is a</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">n
unrealized potential </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">not
to be a morally good agent, and so if there is a rational purely
actual cause, it is a morally good agent – </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">and
indeed, a morally perfect one. But Feser has not established that</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
in </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">the
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">argument
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">under
consideration or even attempted to do so, and </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">it
seems </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">indeed
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">very
improbable</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">.
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">For
example, </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">let’s
consider the following hypothetical scenario: o</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">n
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">some
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">planet
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">in
a distant galaxy</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">,
there </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">are</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
i</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">ntelligent
aliens </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">(say,
species #12182 to give them a name) </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">that
evolved from something </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">very
different from monkeys –</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
maybe from something like, say, squid</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">.
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">Those
aliens </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">make
spaceships and are </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">very
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">capable
of </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">logic,
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">reason,
language, etc., </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">but
instead of morality, </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">they
have some analogue, </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">say
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">#12182-</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">morality.
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">Now
a #12182 alien may h</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">ave
the potential for being a </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">#12182</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">-morally-good
agent, but not a morally good one. This sort of view is of course not
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">compatible</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
with Feser’s metaethics, </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">but
Feser has not showed it – </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">or
many other </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">variants
-</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">is
false, </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">and
that there are no such aliens, let alone that they </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">beings
like those are metaphysically </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">impossible</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">.
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">Now
the following scenario highlights the problem of the relevant senses
of “good”: Su</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">rely,
if the omnipotent, omniscient, unique purely actual cause is
psychologically such that it </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">values</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">#12182-</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">moral-goodness
over moral goodness, it definitely would not count as morally perfect
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">or
morally good </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">in
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">the
sense that is relevant for theistic arguments</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">,
even </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">though
it would be fully</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
good in the sense that it </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">would</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
not fail to realize any of its potentials.</span></span></font></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">So,
e</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">ven
granting that there is a</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">n
omnipotent, omniscient, unique </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">purely
actual cause that is an agent, Feser’s argument does not establish
that </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">said
cause is</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
a morally good agent, </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">in
the relevant sense of th</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">at
expression. </span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">In
fact, I have argued </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><a class="western" href="https://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/a-brief-argument-against-theism-and.html">elsewhere</a>
</font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif">that </font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><i>if</i></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
there is an omnipotent, omniscient agent, </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">said
agent</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
is not </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">a
</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">morally
perfect </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">agent,
</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">or
even </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">a
</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">morally
good </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">one</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">.
</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">That
argument </span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">does
not assume that the omnipotent, omniscient agent is a purely actual
cause, but it does not assume that it is not, either</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">,
</span></span></font><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">so
it is applicable in this context as well. </span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"> </font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><b>8. Conclusion. </b></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">E</span></font></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">ven
granting for the sake of the argument that there is a purely actual
cause, Feser’s argument fails to establish that it is unique,
omniscient, omnipotent or morally perfect. </span></font></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">Even
granting </span></font></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">for
the sake of the argument the </span></font></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">uniqueness,
omnipotence and omniscience </span></font></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">of
the assumed purely actual cause</span></font></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">,
Feser’s argument fails to establish moral perfection or even moral
goodness, in the relevant sense of th</span></font></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">ose</span></font></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">
terms. </span></font></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">A
<a class="western" href="https://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/a-brief-argument-against-theism-and.html">different
argument</a> establishes that an omnipotent, omniscient, morally
perfect agent does not exist, </span></font></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">independently
of the question of pure actuality. </span></font></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">
</span></font></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><b>Notes: </b></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><a name="Aristotle"></a>
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal">[a]
I’m not conceding that </span><span style="font-style: normal">an</span><span style="font-style: normal">
Aristotelian or Aristotelian-Thomistic view of kinds and potentials
is correct. I’m just </span><span style="font-style: normal">granting</span><span style="font-style: normal">
</span><span style="font-style: normal">for the sake of the argument
</span><span style="font-style: normal">as much abou</span><span style="font-style: normal">t
that sort of view as I find useful to raise my objections</span><span style="font-style: normal">.
</span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><a name="omnipotence"></a>
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">[</span><span lang="en-US">b</span><span lang="en-US">]
</span><span lang="en-US">I’m n</span><span lang="en-US">ot
</span><span lang="en-US">implying</span><span lang="en-US"> that the
arguments for omnipotence and omniscience would succeed if </span><span lang="en-US">the
existence of a unique purely actual cause </span><span lang="en-US">is
granted</span><span lang="en-US">. </span><span lang="en-US">I’m
taking no stance on that point here. </span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><a name="agent"></a>
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span lang="en-US">[</span><span lang="en-US">c</span><span lang="en-US">]
</span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">It might
be objected that a purely actual </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">omniscient,
eternal, etc., </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">cause
is not agent in the usual sense of “agent”, and so the fact that
it’s not a morally good agent is unproblematic. </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">I
think this is not true. </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">I
think </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">“agent”
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">is
a</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">correct</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">term</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">,
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">and
I’ve chosen it deliberately because it is broad and does not make
in my assessment controversial ontological claims. However, </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">it
should be clear as I make the rest of my argument, </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">even
if “agent” is not the right word, </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">this
objection would miss </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">my
point</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">.
The </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">objection</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
I’m raising </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">here
</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">does
not hinge on the issue of what an agent is, </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">so
you might pick the </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">term</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">
you find more suitable </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">(e.
g., person, personal substance, or </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">whatever
you think is best</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">)</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">.
</span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><b>References:</b></font></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="five proofs"></a>
<font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">[1]
Feser, Edward, “Five Proofs of the Existence of God”, San
Francisco, Ignatius Press, </span></span></span></font><font color="#000000"><span lang="en-US"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">2017.
</span></span></span></font></font>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"> </font>
</p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-18948669142359589512017-06-13T14:47:00.001-07:002017-12-02T20:59:17.825-08:00A Brief Argument Against Theism and Theistic Religions<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 5.1.6.2 (Linux)"/>
<meta name="created" content="00:00:00"/>
<meta name="changed" content="2017-06-13T18:47:00.173168931"/>
<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
a.cjk:link { so-language: zxx }
a.ctl:link { so-language: zxx }
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>A
Brief Argument Against Theism and Theistic Religions</b></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><meta name="created" content="00:00:00"><meta name="changed" content="2017-06-13T18:38:55.931990671"></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">By
“theism” I mean </span>the hypothesis that there is an omnimax
agent, in other words an agent who is omnipotent, omniscient, and
morally perfect. The word “agent” here is meant to be broad, so
whether the agent is a person, a 3-person agent, a being or somehow a
substance that is not a being if that makes sense, is not an issue.
Let’s call this hypothetical agent “God” (it can be argued that
at most one such agent is possible because of omnipotence; if that’s
not so, the arguments get somewhat more complicated, but the main
points remain the same).</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>The
prior probability of God. </b>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Let’s
suppose first that there exists an omniscient, omnipotent agent.
Let’s call him Zuk (I say “him” just because that’s the usual
pronoun used for God in philosophy of religion; nothing substantive
hinges on that). Is Zuk God? What are the odds?
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Let’s
consider the probability before we factor in that there are humans,
there is suffering, there are religious claims, and so on. It seems
that there is no particular reason to suspect that Zuk would be
morally perfect, or even that Zuk would care about morality. Why not
something else? Why would he prefer good things over some other
things, or care about the classification of things, outcomes, etc.,
between good and bad, better or worse, instead of a classification
alongside one of the many possible unrelated axises?
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">For
example, let's say that there are two other planets in the Local
Group where advanced civilizations developed. On Earth 2, 2-squids
are smart, technologically advanced, etc., and evolved from something
like squids. On Earth 3, 3-elephants are smart, etc., and evolved
from something like elephants. While they are all social beings,
their basic interests and preferences are quite different in many
respects, from each other’s, and from those of humans. There is
overlapping in their interests and preferences, of course, but there
are also considerable differences.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">After
hundreds of thousands or millions of years of evolution as social
beings, they evolved some species-specific rules, and something akin
to a moral sense of sorts, but not quite the same. Their senses are
tracking some other properties, rather than moral properties. The
2-squids have 2-squid morality, they care about 2-squid-good and
2-squid-bad, and about 2-squid-immoral behavior, etc., rather than
about good and bad, and about immoral behavior. A similar story is
true of 3-elephants.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">To be
clear, I’m not saying that their vocabulary, or for that matter our
vocabulary and moral terms are analytically reducible to some
statement about species. Rather, as a result of their evolution, they
got something different from morality, even though somewhat similar,
and the referents of their 2-squid-moral terms and 3-elephant moral
terms are different from the referent of our moral terms, even if
there is partial overlapping between the referents (by the way, to
simplify I’m assuming each of those species has a single language,
but nothing substantive depends on that).
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Perhaps,
a color analogy would be of help here, to illustrate the point:
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">2-squids
also have something akin to color vision, and associated language.
But 2-squid-color is not color. In fact, the 2-squid-visible range of
the spectrum is about as wide as the visible range, but moved into
the ultraviolet. They can see ultraviolet wavelengths (some of them),
but they can’t see reds. They have perceptions similar to our color
perception, but associated with very different wavelengths. In the
past – now they’re much more advanced, have colonized their
planetary system, etc. -, they had vehicles similar to cars but with
controls adapted to their tentacles, and they had traffic lights (or
maybe we should call them traffic 2-squid-lights, but let’s
simplify notation).</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">However,
their traffic lights were not green, red and yellow, but
2-squid-green, 2-squid-red, and 2-squid yellow. In fact, two of them
were the same color (but not the same 2-squid color, of course), just
as two of our traffic lights (the green and yellow ones) are the same
2-squid-color, whereas the red one is not 2-squid-visible, but
infra-2-squid-red.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">So, a
similar story happens in the moral case.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Now, at
least before we consider other relevant pieces of information (always
conditioned to the existence of Zuk, of course), the hypothesis that
Zuk is morally perfect does not seem more likely than the hypothesis
that Zuk is 2-squid-morally perfect, or 3-elephant-morally perfect,
or a gazillion of other potential alternatives of similar complexity.
Of course, the gazillion potential alternatives do not need to be
linked to any actual social species, and 2-squids and 3-elephants do
not need to exist, either. The examples of the 2-squids and the
3-elephants are just a means of introducing the problem, but the
argument does not rely on their being actual species like that.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">I guess
it might be argued that those would not be perfections, but rather,
an agent who – for example - values more 2-squid-morally-good
things than morally good things is, for that reason, <i>imperfect.
</i>But that is a matter of terminology. We can simply re-write the
paragraph before this one, and write:
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Now, at
least before we consider other relevant pieces of information, the
hypothesis that Zuk is morally perfect does not seem more likely than
the hypothesis that Zuk is 2-squid-morally <i>2-squid-perfect</i>, or
3-elephant-morally <i>3-elephant-perfect</i>, or a gazillion of other
potential alternatives of similar complexity, , where
“2-squid-perfect” is the term akin to “perfect” in 2-squid
language (so that, for example, a morally perfect agent would be for
that reason 2-squid-imperfect).
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">But
let’s say that for some reason, the hypothesis that Zuk is morally
perfect is about 10 times as probable (as a prior) than any of the
others of similar complexity (similar complexity of the system of
rules and/or valuations). Then still, that hypothesis is extremely
improbable, since there is a gazillion disjoint alternatives about
0.1 as probable as it is, and while I don’t know how many the
gazillion actually are, that’s not the point: we normally make
proper probabilistic assessments without being able to give specific
numbers.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">So, the
probability of theism is extremely low at this point. Now, that’s
the probability of theism <i>conditioned to the hypothesis that there
is an omniscient, omnipotent agent</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">,
and no other extra hypothesis (except for some background info; I’ll
say more below)</span></span><i>. </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">T</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">he
prior probability of theism is the probability of theism conditioned
to the event that there is no omnipotent, omniscient agent (which is
zero) times the probability that there is no omnipotent, omniscient
agent (no more than 1, of course), plus the probability of theism
conditioned to the event that there is an omniscient, omnipotent
agent (which is extremely low) times the probability that there is an
omnipotent, omniscient agent (no more than 1). The result is an
extremely low</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">prior
probability of theism. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">At this
point, it might be objected that I’m already factoring in some
information, without which I wouldn’t have even thought about
3-elephants, etc., and so that’s not the prior of theism.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">However,
the prior is not prior to everything; there is always some background
information that we have in mind, in order to even assess the
matters. For example, we need to understand the relevant concepts and
the contexts in which we assess matters, we need some information in
order to be able to think about different hypothetical scenarios,
analogies, and so on.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">At any
rate, if someone wants to start with less information on the
background, that’s no problem. In that case, I would say the
probability of theism when further information is incorporated (how
much? As much as needed to make the assessments above, including all
of the relevant concepts) is extremely low, and furthermore, that the
probability of theism conditioned to the hypothesis that there is an
omnipotent, omniscient agent is also extremely low. <a class="western" href="#Swinburne">[1]</a></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">One way
or another, at this point, we have that theism has an <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">extremely</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">low</span></span></span></span>
probability, even though there is – we are assuming - an
omnipotent, omniscient agent, Zuk.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Another
objection would be as follows: ‘<i>2-squid-morality, etc., are
almost certainly not possible; there is only one morality, and if the
2-squids, etc., were as you sketched them psychologically, they
wouldn’t be making 2-moral claims, etc., but moral ones. It’s
like Moral Twin Earth.</i>’</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">I think
that Moral Twin Earth scenarios are misleading to many, probably
because Twin Earthers are described as very, very similar to humans,
and that probably gives the impression that they have a moral sense
too – even if perhaps a malfunctioning one. While I do think the
proper assessment is that there would be miscommunication rather than
disagreement in the Moral Twin Earth scenarios (at least, the ones
I’m familiar with), I made the 2-squids and 3-elephants more
different from humans than the Twin Earthers are, in order to reduce
the risk of that sort of misleading impression.</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">But
leaving that aside, all we need to make the probabilistic assessment
here is that Zuk, for all we know, may well care about some other set
of rules, values, etc., different from morality – or to put it in a
different way, that his mind has a different evaluative function, not
one that factors in matters along the good/evil or right/wrong
axises. Omniscience would not prevent Zuk from being like that:
knowing right from wrong, good from evil, etc., does not entail being
interested in the least in bringing about any good stuff, preventing
evil, etc. <a class="western" href="#internalist">[2]</a> The
2-squids, etc., are just a way of making the matter more intuitively
clear – or so I hope; if they don’t make things clearer, one can
just set them aside and the basic points remain unchanged.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>The
existence of some moral agents, and the kind of moral agents they
are. </b>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So far, we have that – by assumption – there is an omnipotent,
omniscient agent, Zuk, and the probability that Zuk is God is
extremely low. But one event that, on its own, would count in favor
of the hypothesis that he is God is the existence of moral agents.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
We do observe that there are moral agents. We do not observe
2-squid-moral or 3-elephant-moral agents. They or something like them
might exist, but we don’t know that for sure, as we do in the case
of moral agents (though I think given the size of the universe, it’s
very probable that agents with moral-like analogues exist, but let’s
leave that aside).
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, it seems probable that a moral agent would be more inclined –
all other things equal – to create moral agents instead of 2-moral
agents, etc. I don’t know about 2-squid-morality, etc. (will a
2-moral agent be more inclined to make 2-moral agents?), but perhaps
we can say it’s probable that they will be similar to morality in
that regard. Then again, maybe not – there are a gazillion variants
-, but let’s say it’s probable.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, the existence of moral agents raises without 2-moral agents as
far as we know, etc., raises the probability that Zuk is God.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">However,
the existence of </span></span><i>morally imperfect </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">moral
agents, with a moral sense that is generally reliable </span></span><i>but
sometimes it fails horribly</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">,
and also with </span></span><i>inclinations to behave in immoral
manners</i><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">in
a good number of circumstances, counts strongly against the
hypothesis that Zuk is God. </span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
In fact, it’s less likely than it was before we considered the
existence of other agents: A morally perfect omnipotent, omniscient
agent would not want to bring about such flawed, morally imperfect –
very imperfect – agents when he can do far better, and he
definitely could do a lot better because he’s omnipotent.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">How
do I know that he wouldn’t want to do that? </span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">I
use my moral sense, of course, but for that matter, I’m also using
that method to reckon that the existence of moral agents would on its
own raise the probability that Zuk is God. If my moral sense is not a
good guide to assessing how an omnimax agent would behave, then the
probability that Zuk is God remains as low as before. Else, it goes
down. Either way, the probability is extremely slim, and I see no
good reason to think my moral sense is reliable when it comes to one
of the assessments I made above, but not the other. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">But
wait, what if Zuk is not the creator of the universe or any beings in
it? <br/>
Then, the probability that Zuk is God remains as low as
before.</span></span></span></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">What
if my moral sense is failing, but other people properly make other
assessments? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
I haven’t been able to find any good reasons to suspect my moral
sense is failing on this, but in any case, I would recommend that
readers use their own senses, and also try to check whether there are
reasons to think it’s not reliable or is failing in this particular
case.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>The existence of suffering, and the extent and type of some of it.
</b>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In our universe, there is a lot of suffering, and a lot of <i>undeserved
</i>suffering.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">Purely
for example – and there is </span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>a
lot </i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">here
to pick from -, let’s say that several adult men are raping a young
girl just</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">for
fun, or to take revenge on her parents, etc. This sort of horrific
thing has happened. If – say – they are not armed, and a more
numerous group of decent</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">men
who could stop them and see there is no significant risk to themselves or
to other innocent people if they do</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">(i.
e., no morally superseding considerations) , surely they will</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">not
say something like “We could easily stop them, but we will instead
let them rape her, in order to respect their freedom/free will”.
The freedom of the perpetrators is not a morally superseding
consideration. In fact, they should and would intervene. What about a
more powerful agent? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">There
is no particular reason to think being </span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>more
</i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">powerful
reduces their responsibility at all. An omnimax agent would intervene
too. And there is no risk to others, given that he’s omnipotent and
can prevent such atrocious behaviors in all cases without risk of
failing and effortlessly. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In addition, we could add the plight of, say, an injured or old
elephant, suffering horrific torment as a pride of lions eat him
alive.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
And those are merely two examples.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
The fact is that our universe is not remotely a place that an omnimax
agent would create. In fact, even a non-creating omnimax agent is
ruled out by our universe, as such an agent would intervene all
around.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">Granted,
there are theodicies offered by different religions. But they are
extremely improbable, making </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">assessments
that fly on the face of our moral sense.<a class="western" href="#othermoralsense">[3]</a></span></span></span></span></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">What
about skeptical theism?</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">I
reckon that too is extremely improbable, but if – as skeptical
theism claims - we’re generally not in a epistemic position to
assess what a morally perfect being would do, it seems we’re back
to the probability that Zuk is God before we considered factors such
as the existence of moral agents, suffering, etc. </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">–
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">which
is again, extremely low. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
At this point, the probability that Zuk is God either remains the
same as before, or is even <i>lower.</i> Either way, it’s extremely
low.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Religions that claim that God exists. </b>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
What about other factors, such as religions that claim that God
exists?
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
If we take a look at the history of religions, we see that some of
their central claims – usually, most - are generally false. In
fact, they’re not even close to the truth – we know that because
they’re mutually incompatible, at least in many, many cases (e. g.,
incompatible origin stories), and for a good number of other reasons.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">In
particular, religions in nearly all cases make claims about the
interventions of superhuman agents in human history, and in nearly
all of the cases in which they make such claims – I’d say all,
but there is no need to make that claim here –, the claims are
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>false</i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">.
Religions make up entire stories about the intervention of such
agents, and the stories are at least nearly always false. Moreover,
the claims of existence of the agents in those stories (whether
ghosts, Thor or Ares, etc.) are also false. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">But
let’s leave the track record of religions when it comes to the
existence and intervention of superhuman agents in human history
aside for now. Even granting for the sake of the argument that
somehow the claims of some religions do increase in a non-negligible
manner the probability of involvement of agents with superhuman
powers in human history, </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>that
gives us no good reason to even suspect the agent or agents</i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>in
question are morally good, let alone morally perfect. </i></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, <i>we’re already assuming that that there is an
omnipotent, omniscient agent</i> – namely, Zuk. The fact that a few
religions <i>claim</i> that a superhuman agent that intervened in
history is morally perfect does not provide any significant reason to
believe he is so, even granting that a superhuman agent was indeed
involved, and in fact, does not raise the probability that Zuk is God
at all. The facts about suffering that I addressed earlier, and the
fact that there are morally imperfect, sometimes prone to evil moral
agents, make the probability that Zuk is God even lower than it was
at first, which was already extremely low.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
But what about the specific actions attributed to the allegedly
morally perfect agent?
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">In
fact, by assessing those actions, the probability that the agent in
question is morally perfect becomes even lower – much lower, even
from an already extremely low place. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">Granted,
someone might try to pick and choose which of the alleged actions of
God are real, and which are false claims. But trying to pick the
actions depending on whether they’re good would be an improper
means of assessing the moral character of the agent. And generally,
no reasonable basis seems to have been provided to pick and choose
good actions, or apparently good ones at least. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, it seems that the existence of religions that claim that God
exists does not increase in a non-negligibly manner the probability
that Zuk is God.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Arguments to design, fine tuning, Kalam, etc. </b>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
There are a number of theistic arguments intended to show that there
is a powerful creator. I think they all fail to provide any
non-negligible support for their claims, but even assuming otherwise,
in any case those arguments don’t raise the probability that Zuk is
God.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Metaethical arguments. </b>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Metaethical arguments aim at showing that if God does not exist, a
moral error theory (either epistemic or substantive) is true, or
something along those lines. I don’t think they provide any
non-negligible support for their conclusions given their errors, but
they are beyond the scope of this essay. But among other
counterarguments, I would say scenarios involving hypothetical aliens
like the 2-squids and the 3-elephants above are effective against
some of the main ones – though not required; there are other means
to show that they do not succeed.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Contingency arguments. </b>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
I don’t think arguments from contingency succeed in provide any
non-negligible support for the conclusion that there is a necessary
agent of any sort, either, but even if they did, that would not
support the conclusion that the agent is morally perfect.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Now, some contingency arguments include some argumentation intended
to support the conclusion in question. My assessment on the matter is
similar to the case of metaethical arguments – in short, they all
fail -, but it’s also beyond the scope of this essay to address
them (but as before, I would say scenarios involving hypothetical
aliens like the 2-squids and the 3-elephants above can be effectively
used in the context of the replies to some of the main arguments of
this sort).
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>The probability of theism. </b>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
After considering the evidence (arguments, observations, etc.), the
probability that Zuk is God remains extremely low. But that’s the
probability that theism is true conditioned to the event that there
is an omnipotent, omniscient agent.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
The probability of theism is the probability of theism conditioned to
the event that there is no omnipotent, omniscient agent (which is
zero) times the probability that there is no omnipotent, omniscient
agent (I’d say almost 1, but in any case, of course no more than
1), plus the probability of theism conditioned to the event that
there is an omniscient, omnipotent agent (which is extremely low)
times the probability that there is an omnipotent, omniscient agent
(I’d say almost zero, but in any case, no more than 1). The result
is an extremely low probability of theism.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
fact, even granting for the sake of the argument that my arguments
for the extremely low prior of theism above all fail for some reason,
and furthermore, that the prior of God’s existence is high, the
argument from suffering (see a sketch above) would take down the
probability to an extremely low level, even if higher of course than
if the prior is – as I have argued – already extremely low. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Assuming God’s existence. </b>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In the rest of this essay, I’m going to assume for the sake of the
argument that all of the arguments I gave above fail for some reason,
and furthermore, that God exists, and should reckon he does – but
not assuming any religion.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Does God intend to contact humans? </b>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Before I try to assess that, there is a problem I’d like to
address:
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
If God exists, it seems to me that our sense of right and wrong is
woefully inadequate to assess how an omnimax agent would behave.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Granted, it might be argued that it’s <i>my </i>moral sense, and
perhaps the moral senses of those who accept arguments from
suffering, but theists on the other hand are reasonably good at
assessing intuitively how an omnimax agent would behave. However,
that seems again improbable, in light of facts such as the fact that
there is wide disagreement on <i>crucial </i>matters regarding God’s
behavior even among theist adherents to different religions (e. g.,
Does God punish people for eternity?), or the fact that generally
religions are <i>bad</i> sources of information even about their most
crucial tenets, as we can tell by looking at their often mutually
incompatible origin stories, or their frequently false moral tenets.
Many of their moral claims are far from the truth that they often
involve demonizing other groups of people – who do not deserve it
-, promoting slavery and/or genocide, etc., as one can read in, say,
the Old Testament – as many Christians realize as well -, as one
can see all around the history of humanity.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In other words, it does not seem to me that theists are generally in
a better position, with regard to making moral assessments, but in a
worse position.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Still, let’s say that I got that part wrong as well – my sense of
right and wrong got it wrong again.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Furthermore, let’s stipulate that God does intend to contact at
least some humans. How would he do it?
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Given that God is just because he is morally perfect, it seems
probable he would want to contact all humans, except those who by
their own immoral behavior deserve less, or at least all adult
humans.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
It would not appear just that some get an advantage over others with
regard to access to God, if not through their own actions. But that
would include contacting plenty of people all across history, in a
way that is equally clear to all of them. Yet, thorough the vast
majority of human history, all or nearly all societies did not have
any belief in God, and certainly God was not making himself clearly
present, as he could.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, perhaps he intends to contact humans <i>in the afterlife</i>,
with no contact before that.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
There is a problem with that, though: evidence strongly supports that
there is no afterlife. For example, if a human brain is damaged in
one specific way or another, the person may lose some (many)
memories, change their preferences and values, lose their ability to
write, do logic, speak, etc.; in other words, damage to the brain
damages mental functions – not just the mind’s ability to control
arms, legs, etc. -, and it seems any mental function can be damaged
in this fashion. It seems extremely probable that when the brain is
completely destroyed, all mental functions are destroyed as well, and
we die <i>for real</i>, so to speak.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
It didn’t have to be like that, prior to empirical observations.
For example, if we had found that – for instance – damage to the
brain only damages the ability to move our arms, legs, etc., but
never the mind, that would be evidence that the mind can persist. And
of course, if we had found that – as in some fantasy TV shows,
movies, etc. – minds can swap bodies, that would be evidence as
well. But that’s not what we found.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
What about NDE and OBE?
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
I have to say that after looking at the claims, the evidence in
support of them is negligible.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Now, if this is correct and there is no afterlife, then in particular
it follows that God does not intend to contact us in the afterlife
only. So, assuming that God intends to contact some of us at least,
it follows that he intends to do so in this life.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
However, that argument can’t be used to support any of the
religions that posit the existence of God, because they all posit an
afterlife...except, perhaps, some ultra-liberal versions. Due to time
constraints, I will not address them here, but at least theistic
religions encompassing nearly all theists in the world do posit an
afterlife, so this is a nonstarter for them.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, let’s introduce a further assumption: there is an afterlife for
humans, at least if humans meet certain conditions during their life,
or always – no assumption on that. <br/>
Assuming the existence of
God, and also that he intends to contact humans (at least some), and
that there is an afterlife, it seems to me that a live option –
even the most probable one - is that he will contact everyone – or
at least everyone who didn’t do something to deserve not to be
contacted – in the afterlife, and no one before that.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, if this is correct (well, given the assumptions, of course), then
God does not and will not have any religion, at least not before the
afterlife. I do not see any good reason to suspect otherwise even
under these assumptions. So, in particular, at least it’s not
probable that there is or ever will be a true theistic religion.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Is there, or will there be a true religion? </b>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Let us now introduce a further assumption: God intends to contact at
least some humans during their lives and not in the afterlife. How
would he contact them? Would he have a religion?
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
I reckon that the answer is very probably negative, for the following
reasons (among others):
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">First,
historically, nearly all religions make claims about the intervention
of superhuman agents in human history, and nearly all of those claims
at least – I’d say all, but we don’t need to establish that
here – are false. But they’re not just false in the details.
They’re not even close. They are considerably detailed accounts of
the deeds of agents such as Thor, Ares, Anat, </span></span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal">Huitzilopochtli,
and thousands more. No such events ever happened. No such agents ever
existed. </span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">This
is a very strong reason for God not to use religion as the</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">means of contacting humans, among
other reasons because people who are aware of that historical record
will – if they’re being rational - doubt that the claims about
God’s actions are true, or even conclude that they’re very
probably false, so his message would not get across to many people
who are being epistemically rational and are seeking the truth. At
most, he would use religion plus some other, clear method. </span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">At
this point, a</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">class</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">of potential objections could be
based on claims that religions are also good at passing on some
important knowledge about the universe, and/or that science is in
terms of general reliability, not so different from religions. But
while I think such claims are false, in this context, I will just</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">point out that they are irrelevant:
the fact is that religious claims are generally false</span> <i><span style="font-weight: normal">when
it comes to claims</span></i> <i><span style="font-weight: normal">about
involvement of superhuman agents in human history. </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">For
that reason, God would not want to choose religion as the means of
communicating to us. If he were to use religion as a means, he would
add another method, like telling people directly that a specific
religion is true. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Incidentally, I’d like to point out that religions that do posit
the existence of God also have a dismal track record when it comes to
the actions of superhuman agents allegedly involved in history. For
example, for the most part, Christianity was taught to children and
passed on traditionally including false claims of God’s
intervention, like the Flood, or events in the Garden of Eden, or the
events in Egypt, and even more indirect events like the generations
allegedly from Adam to Joseph, and so on. While sophisticated
Christians argue that that’s not part of the dogma, the point is
that it was part of what was transmitted over centuries to almost all
Christians, and as part of their religious indoctrination – of
course, I hold that claims about Jesus’s alleged miracles are false
as well, but let’s leave that aside for now.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Still,
</span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal">at this point,
some worries might be raised about the concept of religion and how
I’m using it. For example, someone might ask questions like: ‘What
if the category “religion” is not relevant in this context?’
‘What does “religion” mean?’</span></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">While
I think religion can be defined ostensively in a way that is precise
enough for the purposes of this essay, and also that religion is
relevant, there is no need to argue for that. Instead, we may point
out that at least nearly all claims made by preachers and/or passed
on by oral or written tradition in different societies regarding the
intervention of superhuman agents in human history, are false. So,
God would very likely not choose to communicate to us humans by means
of a system that relies on claims made by preachers and/or passed on
by oral or written tradition in different societies. If he were to
use that sort of method at all, he would back it up in some other way
that would persuade rational (on this matter, at least) and generally
informed (by present</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">or
future standards) truth-seekers. </span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Second,
and in addition to the previous reasons, religions are generally
unreliable at transmitting stories – even false ones – over time.
In fact, this extends clearly to Abrahamic religions, as their
different variants continue to split into new, more</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">variants
that are different from the previous ones, and in some cases vastly
different from each other. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
That also is a strong reason for God not to rely on religion to
contact us.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">What
else could he do? How else could God contact us? </span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">Well,
surely</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">God knows better. But
purely for example, he could contact people directly and clearly when
he intends to. There is still the question of whether the agent
making contact is God. But given the resources available to God, that
sort of contact would be by far a more effective means of persuading
humans</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">who are being
epistemically rational and seeking the truth – as long as it’s
not always epistemically irrational of humans to believe that God
exists, but that follows from previous assumptions I made. </span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Granted,
some people claim that God contacts them directly, by means of his
alleged third person, etc. But</span></span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">history
also shows other religions often made similar claims, involving
superhuman agents that do not even exist. So, even if contacting a
human in that manner were an effective method to communicate to </span></span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
person</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
it would not be an effective method to communicate to others, who
rationally should not believe such claims. </span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Also,
granted, there are those who claim that people who come to believe
that Christianity is false do so their own fault, even though God is
indeed trying to contact us. But that psychological claim is simply
ludicrous. There is no omnipotent agent of any kind clearly trying to
contact me, unless he’s extremely incompetent. And the same goes
for many other people – nearly all at least, though I think all of
course. </span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">On
the basis of all of this, I reckon people who aren’t clearly
contacted by God</span> – <span style="font-weight: normal">like at
least nearly all of us, though I hold that</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">all
of us –, and who are familiar with the facts I’ve been pointing
out in terms of the track record of religions, etc., should not
believe that any specific religion is true, even assuming we should
believe that theism is and that God intends to contact at least some
humans before the afterlife. </span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
particular, it follows that religions that claim</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">or
imply that it would not be epistemically irrational of most humans to
believe their claims, are </span></span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">false.
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">This
implies that all present-day theistic religions are false, at least
as far as I can tell. </span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Maybe
in the future there will be a true religion, and God will tell humans
directly who the true religion is. But then again, given the track
record of religions, and given that very probably he will use other
means at least in addition to religions, he might as well skip
religions altogether. </span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Assuming God intends to communicate with humans by means of a
religion. </b>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Now I will assume for the sake of the argument that God intends to
have a religion, and moreover, a revealed religion.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">A
central</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">question
is:</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Which
one? What is the true revealed religion? </span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">As
I suggested earlier, the </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">answer
may well be </span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><i>none
yet. </i></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">In
fact, we can tell from our knowledge of history – broadly speaking,
including archaeological evidence and other sources when applicable -
that in nearly all human societies, there was no correct religion of
God, since there simply was no religion of God. The vast majority of
religions posited other superhuman agents, and made detailed claims
about their intervention in human history – all false. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, thorough most of human history, there was no religion
revealed by God – religions did not even claim to be revealed by
God.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">So,
at the very least, God</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">waited
for tens of thousands without establishing his religion, even though
humans were already on the planet engaging in all sorts of religious
rituals. He may very well still be waiting. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">Moreover,
we can tell just due to mutually incompatible claims</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">that
at least most theistic religions are also false, even in some of
their basic tenets – such as those related to the afterlife,
including purportedly essential conditions for salvation and
damnation. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">In
addition to that, one can point out that even on theism, claims of
intervention by God are extremely improbable without specific
evidence to back them up; it’s hard to see what evidence will do to
back them up, but since we’re assuming that having a revealed
religion is God’s plan, I guess God knows better. But the evidence
so far surely isn’t nearly good enough. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">As
an analogy, let’s consider, for example, a criminal case before a
jury. Alice is a juror. The defendant’s lawyer points out that it’s
consistent with the observations that the body is missing because she
resurrected and woke away. Surely, Alice is rational in holding that
that is not what happened to the body, and indeed that if the verdict
depends on that, no reasonable doubt has been created without a lot
of specific evidence in support of the hypothesis in question. In
fact, it would be irrational on her part to think otherwise. And the
same would be the case if, say, the defendant’s lawyer offered the
testimony of the members of a small religious group, and no one
else’s. That testimony would constitute </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>some
</i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">evidence,
but not nearly enough to create reasonable doubt. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Yet, in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, what we have is n-th
hand testimony at best – or rather, a <i>claim </i>of that -, as
well as other claims of associated interventions sometimes. That’s
<i>some </i>specific evidence. But it’s not nearly enough to even
create reasonable doubt. Of course, I use my own epistemic intuitions
to make that assessment; I invite readers to do the same. But let’s
be clear: I’m not suggesting that Christians who have access to
information such as the general failure of religions when it comes to
claims about the intervention of superhuman agents in human history
and the rest of the matters I’ve addressed so far, are <i>generally</i>
unreasonable. In fact, in most of their daily activities, most of
them tend to be reasonable – like most humans generally are -, and
some of them are very intelligent and generally thoughtful and
knowledgeable. So, they’re <i>generally </i>reasonable. But that
does not make their specific epistemic probabilistic assessments
about, say, the claims that<span style="background: transparent">
Jesus raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, or
resurrected, proper. This is not a problem limited to Christians, of
course. Many other religions and/or ideologies are examples of a
similar phenomenon. In particular, ot</span>her religions positing
God and alleged godly interventions in human history face similar
problems.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">In
addition to the previous matters, one can assess directly the actions
attributed to God in Christianity, Islam, etc., and the actions
attributed to his followers </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>while
claiming or implying that his followers were behaving in a morally
good manner</i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">,
and use that as a means of assessing whether Christianity, Islam,
etc., are true. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Upon making those assessments, it seems even more clear to me that no
present-day religion is true – it was already crystal clear, but I
mean this adds more evidence.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">Now,
granted, I’m already assuming for the sake of the argument that God
exists, which already implies that at least my sense of right and
wrong is awfully bad at predicting what God might do. However, this
is not the same as concluding my moral sense is completely useless at
that. Shouldn’t I still hold, on the basis of my own moral
intuitions, that it’s improbable that, say, God’s commands are
those followed by Al-Qaeda, even assuming God intends to have a
revealed religion? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
But if so, why would it not be proper on my part to make an
assessment against other religions as well?
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Regardless, even granting that my moral sense fails so badly that I
shouldn’t try to even guess at what God would or might do, that
does not rule out the use of my own moral sense to properly assess
what <i>human beings </i>should do.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Purely for example, I reckon that, say, the ancient Israelites who
were told that a morally good or even morally perfect creator
commanded them to, say, stone a woman to death for – allegedly, but
let’s leave that aside - not being a virgin the day she was handed
over to the man she had been pledged to, should not have followed the
command, just as people who are today told similar stories should not
stone people to death (or hang them, etc.) for adultery or similar
behaviors.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
What if those engaging in the stoning were threatened by a powerful
superhuman agent, and that’s why they followed the command and
stoned her to death? <br/>
I don’t think that that happened, but
that aside, it’s true that some threats might justify the stoning.
For instance, maybe a credible threat to make it much worse for their
victim than death by stoning (e. g., eternal torment by fire) would
justify stoning her. But at the very least, they shouldn’t have
followed such a command willingly, believing the victim of their
actions deserved it. And yet, present-day theistic religions that
encompass nearly all theists imply that applying such punishments
willingly was morally acceptable, and even either mandatory or
praiseworthy.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
As before, I reckon a similar case succeeds against every present-day
theistic religion, except perhaps for some ultra-liberal variants,
but those have also insurmountable problems, like – say – a
clearly mistaken interpretation of the texts (i. e., they interpret
the text to mean something other than what they mean) – which is
also a common error in other, not ultra-liberal variants.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
I invite readers to make their own assessments on the matter, but it
seems to me that even under the assumption that God exists and
intends to have a revealed religion, it’s very, very probable that
the religion in question has yet to be revealed – not that I think
there is a non-negligible chance that God exists.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="Swinburne"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">[1]
This is one of Richard Swinburne’s errors in his argument for the
existence of God (</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-style: normal">Swinburne,
Richard "The Existence of God", Second Edition; Cla</span></font></font></span></font></span><font face="Times New Roman, serif">rendon
Press Oxford). </font><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal">He
believes that an omnipotent, omniscient agent would be morally
perfect, whereas it’s extremely improbable that an omnipotent,
omniscient agent be morally perfect. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><a name="internalist"></a>
[2] There are internalist philosophical theories that claim
otherwise; this is a brief argument and I won’t address them here.
But I will later address the hypothesis that I got things wrong so
far.
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><a name="othermoralsense"></a>
[3] Of course, someone might insist it’s only my moral sense, or
the moral senses of those who make similar assessments. I can only
invite readers to make their own assessments, and also try to see if
their moral sense has been likely affected by a damaging influence
when assessing that particular kind of matter.
</p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-62689886535022450752017-04-27T17:00:00.000-07:002017-04-28T12:49:59.872-07:00More on the Bible and rape. A reply to Matthew Flannagan. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 5.1.6.2 (Linux)"/>
<meta name="created" content="00:00:00"/>
<meta name="changed" content="2017-04-28T16:49:07.638232702"/>
<meta name="created" content="00:00:00">
<meta name="changed" content="2017-04-28T16:36:37.128664365">
<meta name="created" content="2017-04-25T19:36:20.879858602">
<meta name="changed" content="2017-04-27T20:58:55.028002033">
<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
a:link { so-language: zxx }
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">In an <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-bible-and-rape-copans-reply-to.html">earlier
post</a>, I replied to Copan’s argument in defense on some biblical
passages. But now I’d like to address some of the passages in
question in more detail, as well as other passages involving related
manners. In particular, I will reply to <a href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/07/sunday-study-does-the-bible-teach-that-a-rape-victim-has-to-marry-her-rapist.html">Matthew
Flannagan’s interpretation of them</a> <a href="#stillactive">[1]</a><a href="#stillactive">
</a>– though my points will not be limited to a reply to his
arguments.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">I will quote from
the World English Bible, but I will also consider some arguments
involving the original Hebrew text.
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<font color="#009900"><b>Deuteronomy 22</b> <b>says</b>: </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<font color="#009900">22. If a man is found lying with a woman
married to a husband, then they shall both die, the man who lay with
the woman and the woman. So you shall remove the evil from Israel. 23
If there is a young lady who is a virgin pledged to be married to a
husband, and a man finds her in the city, and lies with her, 24 then
you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall
stone them to death with stones; the lady, because she didn’t cry,
being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor’s
wife. So you shall remove the evil from among you. 25 But if the man
finds the lady who is pledged to be married in the field, and the man
forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her
shall die; 26 but to the lady you shall do nothing. There is in the
lady no sin worthy of death; for as when a man rises against his
neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter; 27 for he found her
in the field, the pledged to be married lady cried, and there was no
one to save her. 28 If a man finds a lady who is a virgin, who is not
pledged to be married, grabs her and lies with her, and they are
found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the lady’s
father fifty shekels‡ of silver. She shall be his wife, because he
has humbled her. He may not put her away all his days. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Matthew Flannagan’s
argument is about <span style="font-weight: normal">D</span><strong><span style="font-weight: normal">euteronomy
22:28-29, and</span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span style="font-weight: normal">considers
also the context of the verse, in particular the previous passages.
He claims that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is not about cases of rape, but
about cases of seduction. </span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal">He
gives the following main reasons for his assessment (in my words; you
can read his own argument <a href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/07/sunday-study-does-the-bible-teach-that-a-rape-victim-has-to-marry-her-rapist.html">here</a>).
</span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="chazak"></a>
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal">1. The word used in the
original (in Hebrew) is “tabas”, which does not indicate the use
of force. While in some cases that word is used when there is force,
in some cases, it’s used when there is no force. But in previous
verses in the same context, when the case is clearly one of rape (i.
e., in the case of the woman raped in the field), the word </span></strong><strong>“</strong><strong><em><span style="font-weight: normal">chazak</span></em></strong><strong>”
</strong><strong><span style="font-weight: normal">is used.</span></strong></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="exodus"></a>
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal">2. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
repeats a law in Exodus 22:15 (probably a typo; it’s Exodus 22:16),
as Deuteronomy repeats many of the commands in Exodus. In the Exodus
case, it’s clear that it’s not about cases of rape: the word used
in Exodus</span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span style="font-weight: normal">means
“seduces”.</span></strong></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="morality"></a>
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal">3. If the Bible commanded
that the victim of rape marry her rapist, that would be a cruel
command that would clash with strong moral intuitions. In absence of
specific reasons, the interpretation of divine commands that is more
in line with moral intuitions should be preferred.</span></strong></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal">I
will reply to all 3 points, and make my own case supporting the
assessments that: </span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal">a. It’s probable that the
passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 was neither only about cases of rape
nor about cases of consensual sex only, but included both. Else, it
probably included only cases of rape. [<a href="#modification">2</a>]</span></strong></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal">b. The commands surrounding
it - like many others in the Bible on related matters – are cruel
and morally heinous. </span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal">Let’s
consider point <a href="#chazak">1</a>. first. </span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal">Before
we entertain other reasons, it seems that if the lawmaker had
intended to talk about rape exclusively, it looks more likely that he
would have used the word </span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">“</span></strong><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">chazak”.
That word was used in immediately previous verses and in the same
context (see the biblical passage quoted above), and would have been
the command clearly about cases of rape.</span></span></span></em></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, if the lawmaker had intended to refer to cases of
consensual sex either – just repeating the command in Exodus -,
then it seems more likely he would have used a word that makes clear
that it’s not about cases in which there is used of force – i.
e., not about rape, in this context -, as the lawmaker of Exodus did.
</span></span></span></em>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
fact that the lawmaker used a different word – one that can be used
both for cases of force and for cases in which there is no use of
force – supports the hypothesis that</span></span></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
lawmaker gave a command applicable to both cases. </span></span></span></em>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Let’s
now go deeper, and consider the context. The previous passages
consider a case of rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), but the evidence
shows conclusively that the rapist is not at all punished for rape,
for the following reasons: </span></span></span></em>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
Deuteronomy 22:23-24, the lawmaker clearly believes that there is no
rape, but consensual sex between a man and a woman </span></span></span></em><em><i><span style="font-weight: normal">pledged
to be married to another man</span></i></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></span></span></em>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Now,
her not crying is by not mean conclusive evidence that she was not
raped. It may well be that – say – he put a knife to her throat
and she was too afraid to cry </span></span></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal">–
</span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
with good reason -, so she did not cry. I guess it might be argued
that other words clearly indicate consent, but in any event, the
lawmaker assumes she had consensual sex with him, and the punishment
for both of them is </span></span></span></em><em><i><span style="font-weight: normal">death
by stoning. </span></i></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
is clearly not a punishment for rape, since she did not rape anyone,
and the lawmaker believes he did not, either. It’s clearly a
punishment for some sort of behavior going against the will of the
father or the other man, or both, or their agreement, etc. </span></span></span></em><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">(whatever
the behavior the lawmaker thought was worthy of death by stoning)</span></span></span></strong><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
but not at all for rape. <br/>
Now, in the verses that follow those
immediately (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), the lawmaker imposes exactly </span></span></span></em><em><i><span style="font-weight: normal">the
same punishment </span></i></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
a rapist who rapes a woman </span></span></span></em><em><i><span style="font-weight: normal">pledged
to be married to another man. </span></i></em>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
the lawmaker had intended to punish a man for raping a woman, then it
would make no sense to include the condition that she be pledged to
another man. But the condition is there. And the punishment is, as I
pointed out above, exactly the same as the punishment in the
consensual sex case. </span></span></span></em>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">This
is </span></span></span></em><em><i><span style="font-weight: normal">very</span></i></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">strong
evidence that the punishment in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 is not for rape,
but as in the case above, for some sort of behavior going against the
will of the father or the other man, or both, or their agreement,
etc., but not for rape. </span></span></span></em><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Here,
the behavior here that the lawmaker deems worthy of death by stoning
is not rape, but whatever “offense” against the father/third
party the lawmaker had in mind, and is the same punishment for the
man regardless of whether the woman consents. As for the woman, she
only incurs punishment if she also consents. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">At
this point, it might be suggested that death by stoning is imposed to
the rapist </span></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">both
</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">for
the rape and for the action against the father, and that’s why the
condition that she be pledged to another man is included in
Deuteronomy 22:23-24. However, if that were the case and the lawmaker
intended to impose death by stoning for rape, then he would have
added </span></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">another
verse </span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">imposing
death by stoning for the rape of a woman not pledged to another man.
But this is not the case. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Alternatively,
it might be suggested also that the lawmaker thought that raping a
woman </span></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">pledged
to another man</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">was
worthy of death by stoning </span></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">because
of the rape – </span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
regardless of the pledge -, but he thought the rape of a woman not
pledged to another man was worthy of a lesser punishment. But that
does not seem probable: if the pledge is not the key difference, why
would the rape itself be worthy of death by stoning if she’s
pledged to another man, but not if she isn’t? And where is the
punishment for the rape of women not pledged to other men? </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">An
alternative interpretation is that maybe the punishment for the rape
of women not pledged to other men is precisely Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
On this alternative, the Deuteronomy lawmaker did want to punish
rape, but he thought that for rape, a smaller punishment was merited
than for the other “offenses”. So, the punishment of death by
stoning in D</span></span></span></strong><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">euteronomy
22:25-27 is for some offense against the father and/or the other man
as explained above, which would be in the lawmaker’s twisted mind
far worse than rape, and</span></span></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">there
was not much point in adding some extra punishment for rape in
</span></span></span></em><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">D</span></span></span></strong><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">euteronomy
22:25-27. This alternative hypothesis</span></span></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">holds
that </span></span></span></em><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
lawmaker in Deuteronomy left the case of consensual sex to Exodus
22:16, and wanted to consider </span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">only</span></i></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
case of rape in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. For that reason too, the
lawmaker introduced a new condition, namely that “</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#009900"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">He
may not put her away all his days.”</span></span></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
That</span></span></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
condition not present in Exodus, and the Deuteronomy lawmaker thought
it would be in her interest – as part of his vast confusion about
morality and human psychology. </span></span></font></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">While
I don’t think we can rule out that alternative interpretation –
or something like it - beyond a reasonable doubt, i</span></span></font></span></em><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">n
context it seems more probable that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 included
both cases of rape and cases of consensual sex, mainly for two
reasons: </span></span></font></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">i.
There would seem to be no reason for the lawmaker to use a word that
is not limited to cases in which force is used if he meant to include
only cases in which it is, especially given that in the preceding
verses, he used a word that clearly indicated the use of force. </span></span></font></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">ii.
In general, and considering other verses as well, the Deuteronomy
lawmaker seems uninterested in punishing rape; in fact, in some
cases, it allows it or even commands it (I’ll say more on this
later). </span></span></span></em>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
it seems probable</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
– </span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
their cultural framework, strongly oppressive against women – that
the monetary punishment in</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Deuteronomy
22:28-29</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">a
punishment</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">for
reducing her value as a potential bride, given that her hymen would
very probably be broken. As for the command to marry her, it was
probably a twisted way of thinking of her protection, without asking
for her consent – by the way, even if the sex was consensual, she
may well not consent to further sex or to marriage, but she was given
no such choice. So, one way or another, she could be end up being
forced to marry her rapist. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
will now address point <a href="#exodus">2.</a> </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It’s
true that the book of Deuteronomy sometimes repeats some legal
dispositions</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">included
in Exodus, but also, it adds new legal dispositions. In particular,
the command in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 uses different</span></span></span></strong><strong>
</strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">language
from the command in Exodus 22:16, and no longer uses a word that is
exclusively about consensual cases. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is clearly written in the context of the
immediately previous verses - namely Deuteronomy 22:23-24 and 25-27
-, and should be interpreted in that context</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></i></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">And
in that context, the hypothesis that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 was only
about cases of consensual sex </span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">wouldn’t
seen to make any sense</span></i></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
</span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
fact, if the lawmaker of Deuteronomy was willing to punish a man for
reducing a virgin’s “value” by having consensual sex with her,
why would he let the rapist who equally reduces her</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
“</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">value”
get away with it unpunished? </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It
might be suggested that the reason for the monetary punishment in
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is not that her “value” was reduced, but –
say – it was a punishment for “seducing” women not pledged to
other men. Did the Deuteronomy lawmaker thought that seduction of
women not pledged to other men merited punishment, but rape didn’t
merit any? He was overall a very, very confused person, so I guess
one might suspect so at first. But </span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">if</span></i></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">so,
why the money </span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">for
the father</span></i></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">?</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
punishment seems to be about her “value” as a virgin – at
least, the part of the punishment consisting on the money for the
father. But it would seem to make no sense not to </span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">also</span></i></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">impose
a punishment on the rapist who diminishes her “value” in a
similar fashion. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Granted,
Exodus also does not consider the case of rape, so it might be
suggested</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
lawmaker in Deuteronomy also didn’t think of that possibility in
Deuteronomy 22:28-29, either. But in this context, the lawmaker
clearly has in mind the possibility of rape – considering the
immediately previous verses -, so it’s improbable that he simply</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">forgot
about that possibility and decided to consider only cases of
consensual sex, while at the same time </span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">changing
the word</span></i></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
with respect to Exodus, and picking a new word </span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
could apply both to consensual cases and to rape, instead of using a
word that would apply only to consensual cases </span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
in Exodus. It seems far more probable that the change in the wording
with respect to Exodus was precisely meant to include both cases of
rape and cases of consensual sex. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Regarding
point <a href="#morality">3</a>., my reply is that: </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">i.
We actually do have specific reasons – which I have explained above
-, on the basis of which we should reckon that it’s very probable
that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 included</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">cases
of rape – and probably not</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">exclusively
cases of rape -, even if the proposed general principle of
interpretation</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">were
true. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">We
may not have established beyond any reasonable doubt that it covered
cases of rape, but we’ve established it’s very likely. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">ii.
The proposed principle is not true: the lawmakers</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
Deuteronomy and generally the Old Testament were</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">very,
very confused about many aspects of morality, and as a result, Old
Testament Law is overall profoundly unjust - I have argued for that
in more detail in my <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1al-RuUEVxHk3ldQQC8o0U5ES3T7MfnmxdaKjVAl0Zzc/pub">Moral
Case against </a><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1al-RuUEVxHk3ldQQC8o0U5ES3T7MfnmxdaKjVAl0Zzc/pub">Christianity</a>,
and I will provide some examples below -. There is no good reason to
consider, all other things equal, that an interpretation that renders
a biblical command just – or even less unjust – is particularly</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">more
probable than a heinous one.</span></span></span></strong></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Instead,
what we should consider is how an interpretation of a particular
command coheres with its context – of course -, and also with other
commands regarding similar matters, which may give us a clue as to
what sort of framework the lawmaker/s</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">was/were</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">working
with. Now, sometimes, all of that is not enough to settle the matter
conclusively, but only to make assessments about which
interpretations are more or less probable, in which case, we should
acknowledge so. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
the particular case under consideration, a relevant</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">factor</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
– </span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">though
we have very strong and more direct evidence already - is what the
lawmaker of Deuteronomy – and, to a much lesser extent, the rest of
the Old Testament since they may have influenced Deuteronomy </span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">–
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">thought
about women’s freedom to choose their sexual partners, rape, etc.,
and how he/they</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">treated
them. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">As
we shall see below, said lawmaker/s was/were</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">particularly
immoral when it came to dealing with such</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">matters,
regularly violating a woman’s freedom of choice, and either
permitting – and implying moral permissibility – of rape in
several cases, or even mandating sex regardless of a woman’s choice
– which would be a command to rape her, when she fails to consent. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
will address the context and how biblical law – in particular,
Deuteronomy – deals with women’s sexuality and sexual</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">freedom
below, but before I get to that, I’d like to point out that other</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">commands
in the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 were also</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">deeply
unjust – heinous – even if one grants the very improbable
interpretation that Deuteronomy 22:28-29</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
only about cases of consensual sex. Part of the injustice is that in
22:25-27 a rapist is stoned to death for some sort of “offense”
against the victim’s father – for which he surely doesn’t
deserve death -, and is not punished for the rape at all – for
which he deserves punishment, though probably not death by stoning. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">However,
the dispositions in Deuteronomy 22:24-27 are even much worse, since
the victims of the injustice are not deserving of any significant
punishment at all – or even not any punishment. The situation is as
follows: </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">A
man and a woman have consensual sex. She was pledged to another man.
Deuteronomy 22:24-27 commands that they both be </span></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">stoned
to death. </span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It
should be apparent that that’s extremely unjust on its own, even
assuming that she was required to consent to the pledge. There seems
to be no good reason to think there was such requirement in the
Bible, though. On the contrary, the biblical evidence mostly supports
otherwise. Still, let’s assume for now that she was required to
consent to the pledge. </span></span></span></strong><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
fact remains that the commands in Deuteronomy 22:22 and Deuteronomy
22:23-24 are also in conflict with very strong moral intuitions.
There is no good reason to put our sense of right and wrong aside and
accept that such behavior is acceptable, let alone obligatory.</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">At
this point, someone might say that given that God commanded it, it
was obligatory. I would say that for that matter, if that reply were
successful, it would also work in the case of Deuteronomy 22:28-29,
when a woman is forced to marry her rapist. But of course, it’s not
at all a successful reply. </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Let’s
consider a present-day analogy: a man is told that they should stone
people to death - or hang, or otherwise execute - for behaviors such
as adultery, apostasy, blasphemy, and so on. They are also told that
an omnimax (i. e., omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) creator
commanded so. It’s apparent that their behavior is morally
appalling if they follow the commands willingly – leaving aside
threats to their lives or their families, which would make the moral
assessment of their behavior more complicated -, and that they ought
not to believe that the commands were given by an omnimax creator.
But the same applies to the people who lived in ancient Israel, and
who were told that the commands in Deuteronomy were from an omnimax
creator, or at least from an extremely powerful and good creator.
They should not have believed that an extremely good and powerful
creator had issued</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">such
commands. But what if Yahweh, the biblical creator, actually made a
display of power? Should they not have believed that an omnimax
creator gave the commands? </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It’s
obvious to me that that never happened – since Yahweh does not
exist -, but assuming that those displays of power did happen, the
answer remains </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">no
– of course not</span></i></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">One
point that one can make here is that if Yahweh made displays</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
power, the vast majority of the people who received the biblical
commands did not see such displays</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
– </font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">they
were just </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">told
</span></i></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">about
them, as are people who presently engage in similarly atrocious
behavior are told about putative displays of power. Even granting
that Yahweh’s displays</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
power were real and those present-day people are told about were not,
</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
both cases the people following the commands were just </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">told
</span></i></span></font></font></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">about
them. </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></strong>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">However,
there is a stronger and much more direct reply: even the people who
saw those amazing displays of power should not have believed that the
agent giving such atrocious commands was an omnimax creator. They
should have believed of course that he (or maybe rather “it”?)
was a very </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">powerful</span></i></span></font></font></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">agent,
but they should not have believe that he was morally </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">good</span></i></span></font></font></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
let alone morally </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">perfect</span></i></span></font></font></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
or that his abhorrent commands were </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">just</span></i></span></font></font></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Another
objection might be that allegedly Israel would have been destroyed
without those punishments, because keeping the bloodlines clear was
very important to them. But for that matter, keeping the bloodlines
clear is also very important in present-day social groups that have
atrocious laws in those regards.</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
the laws were repelled, those groups would perhaps change
significantly, but </span></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">for
the better</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
since those </span></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">very
immoral </span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">punishments
would no longer be the law. The same applies to ancient Israel
(besides, assuming a woman’s consent was required, there is no good
reason to think a high percentage of women would be cheating on their
fiancés; still, it should be clear that even that would not remotely
justify the punishments). </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Leaving
aside the injustice in Deuteronomy 22:22-24,</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">let’s
go back now to the question of consent, how Deuteronomy – and
biblical law in general – often</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">treats</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">a
woman’s sexual freedom. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">First,
in general cases of marriage, the Bible does not say that a woman’s
consent was required. Now, the Bible does not deny that it was,
either, so it’s silent. But the following biblical examples support
the conclusion that it wasn’t required: </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#00ae00"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Joshua
15: </b></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#00ae00"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">15:13
To Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a portion among the children of
Judah, according to the commandment of Yahweh to Joshua, even Kiriath
Arba, </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#00ae00"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">which
Arba was</span></i></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#00ae00">
</font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#00ae00"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
father of Anak (the same is Hebron). 15:14 Caleb drove out there the
three sons of Anak: Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of
Anak. 15:15 He went up there against the inhabitants of Debir: now
the name of Debir before was Kiriath Sepher. 15:16 Caleb said, He who
strikes Kiriath Sepher, and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my
daughter as wife. 15:17 Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of
Caleb, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife.</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em></p>
<p style="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#00ae00"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Judges
1: </b></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#00ae00"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">1:11
From there he went against the inhabitants of Debir. (Now the name of
Debir before was Kiriath Sepher.) 1:12 Caleb said, He who strikes
Kiriath Sepher, and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter
as wife. 1:13 Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, took
it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife. </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Here,
Caleb openly promises to give his daughter Achsah as wife to whoever
strikes and takes Kiriath Sepher. There is no suggestion in the Bible
that the promise was illegal, or that it was conditioned to Achsah’s</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">agreement,
or that Achsah had previously agreed. No one seems to have asked for
clarification, either. The passage simply does not highlight that
behavior as abnormal in any way. And when Othniel took Kiriath
Sepher, Caleb gave him Achsah as wife – as Caleb had promised -,
again without any suggestion of an illegal act, or that she had a say
on the matter. Again, this is not to say that, in this particular
case, that she was forced. Maybe she was not. But rather, that there
was no legal requirement that she consented. </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<font color="#00ae00"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><b>1
Samuel 17</b></font></font></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<font color="#00ae00"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">17:22
David left his baggage in the hand of the keeper of the baggage, and
ran to the army, and came and greeted his brothers. 17:23 As he
talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine
of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the ranks of the Philistines, and
spoke according to the same words: and David heard them. 17:24 All
the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, and were
sore afraid. 17:25 The men of Israel said, Have you seen this man who
is come up? surely to defy Israel is he come up: and it shall be,
that the man who kills him, the king will enrich him with great
riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father's house
free in Israel.</font></font></font></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Here,
too, it seems that the king would give his daughter to whoever could
defeat Goliath. It could be anyone. There is no suggestion of a
condition that she had to consent. </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#00ae00"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2
Kings 14</b></span></span></font></font></font></span></em></p>
<p align="left" style="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#00ae00"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">14:5
It happened, as soon as the kingdom was established in his hand, that
he killed his servants who had slain the king his father: 14:6 but
the children of the murderers he didn't put to death; according to
that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as Yahweh
commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the
children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every
man shall die for his own sin. 14:7 He killed of Edom in the Valley
of Salt ten thousand, and took Sela by war, and called its name
Joktheel, to this day. 14:8 Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash,
the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us
look one another in the face. 14:9 Jehoash the king of Israel sent to
Amaziah king of Judah, saying, The thistle that was in Lebanon sent
to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give your daughter to my
son as wife: and there passed by a wild animal that was in Lebanon,
and trod down the thistle. 14:10 You have indeed struck Edom, and
your heart has lifted you up: glory of it, and abide at home; for why
should you meddle to your</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#00ae00">
</font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#00ae00"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">hurt,
that you should fall, even you, and Judah with you? 14:11 But Amaziah
would not hear. </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
Jehoash – the king of Israel – told Amaziah</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#00ae00">
– </font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
king of Judah – to give his daughter to Jehoash’s son as wife.
While Amaziah did not accept, that seemed like a negotiation between
two kings, with no suggestion that Amaziah’s daughter’s consent
was legally required. </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Given
the passages above, the biblical evidence supports the conclusion
that there was no requirement that a woman agree to be pledged. It’s
not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but it’s enough to make it
probable that consent was not required by those laws (other laws may
have required consent, in some periods). </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">As
I mentioned before, I’m not suggesting no fathers considered their
daughters’ choices</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
– </font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">either
in the real ancient Israel or in the ancient Israel</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
the biblical story, but I’m assuming for the sake of the argument
that the stories did happen.</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
the point is that the daughter’s</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">consent
was apparently not legally required in these stories. So, in
particular, it seems a woman who was pledged to a man she did not
want to get married to and had sex with someone else could be legally
stoned to death for that (though as I pointed out before, the
injustice of the punishment is huge even in the cases in which she
consented). </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
even if we leave those cases aside for whatever reason, there are
others in which the injustices</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">committed
by the biblical lawmakers</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">can
be seen</span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></em><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">more
clearly. I will comment on some of them: </span></span></span></font></font></font></span></em>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#009900"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Deuteronomy
25. </b></span></font></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#009900"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">5
If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the
wife of the dead shall not be married outside to a stranger. Her
husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and
perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 It shall be that
the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed in the name of his brother
who is dead, that his name not be blotted out of Israel.</span></span></font></span></strong></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#009900"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">7
If the man doesn’t want to take his brother’s wife, then his
brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, “My
husband’s brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in
Israel. He will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.”
8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him. If he
stands and says, “I don’t want to take her,” 9 then his
brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, and
loose his sandal from off his foot, and spit in his face. She shall
answer and say, “So shall it be done to the man who does not build
up his brother’s house.” 10 His name shall be called in Israel,
“The house of him who had his sandal removed.”</span></span></font></span></strong></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
this case, sexual penetration is commanded, regardless of the choices
of either the woman or the man. That would</span></span></font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
particular include cases of rape, where she does not consent. And the
rape would be not only legal, but legally obligatory. As for the man,
he can refuse to have sex, though he would have to pay a price in
terms of reputation it seems – and she’s mandated to </span></span></font></span></strong><strong><font color="#000000"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">demand</span></i></font></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
he “perform the duty of a husband’s brother” to her, which may
well be an obligation to demand her own rape. What if she didn’t
want him to perform the “duty”? The biblical lawmaker simply does
not care. At all. He gives the command anyway. </span></span></font></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Here’s
another heinous case, also</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
Deuteronomy: </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#009900"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Deuteronomy
25: </b></span></font></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="V101"></a><a name="V111"></a><a name="V12"></a><a name="V13"></a><a name="V14"></a>
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#009900"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">10
When you go out to battle against your enemies, and Yahweh your God
delivers them into your hands and you carry them away captive, 11 and
see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to
her, and desire to take her as your wife, 12 then you shall bring her
home to your house. She shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13
She shall take off the clothing of her captivity, and shall remain in
your house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month. After
that you shall go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your
wife. 14 It shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall
let her go where she desires; but you shall not sell her at all for
money. You shall not deal with her as a slave, because you have
humbled her. </span></span></font></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">This
passage does not command rape. However, it clearly allows rape. An
ancient Israelite soldier is allowed to kidnap a woman, and after
give her a month to mourn her parents – killed in the Israelite
attack, which of course targeted civilians as well as combatants -,
he is legally free to rape her. In context, the lawmaker implies –
falsely and without justification, of course – that the soldier’s
behavior – which would be grossly immoral – would be morally
acceptable. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">The following is
from Numbers – so, this is another biblical lawmaker.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#009933"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Exodus
21: </b></span></font></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="V7"></a><a name="V8"></a><a name="V9"></a><a name="V10"></a><a name="V11"></a>
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#009933"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">7
“If a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not
go out as the male servants do. 8 If she doesn’t please her master,
who has married her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He
shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has
dealt deceitfully with her. 9 If he marries her to his son, he shall
deal with her as a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself,
he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marital rights.
11 If he doesn’t do these three things for her, she may go free
without paying any money. </span></span></font></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
this particular case, it’s apparent that her consent isn’t
needed: a man is allowed to </span></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">sell</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">his
daughter – that’s his prerogative, not her</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">choice.
Then, her master </span></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">marries
her</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
himself, or to his son</span></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Again,
that’s the </span></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">master</span></i></strong><strong>’</strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">s
choice</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
There is no indication whatsoever that </span></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal">her
choice </span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">was
required. Now, these passages are concerned with providing a minimum
amount of protection for her. But that’s from the perspective of a
very, very</span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span></strong><strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">twisted
sense of morality, which fails to recognize how abhorrent the
situation is and the laws are, where she can be raped legally by a
man who made a deal with her father. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="stillactive"></a>
<strong><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[1]
I recently replied also on his blog. His original post is from 2009,
but he posted a comment to the thread in April, 2017, so the
discussion over there seems to be still active at the time I’m
writing this. </span></span></span></strong>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="modification"></a>
[2] In an earlier version of this post, I gave less credence to the
hypothesis that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 was only about rape. After
further consideration, I introduced some modifications to consider a
variant that raises the probability that it was only about rape –
though I still consider it less probable than the alternative that it
includes both cases of rape and cases of consensual sex.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-70142241326630753342017-01-16T22:57:00.000-08:002017-06-06T09:19:16.313-07:00A Brief Argument on the Prior Probability of Theism<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 5.1.6.2 (Linux)"/>
<meta name="created" content="00:00:00"/>
<meta name="changed" content="2017-06-06T13:18:58.510070182"/>
<meta name="created" content="00:00:00">
<meta name="changed" content="2017-01-17T04:03:37.658665476">
<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
a:link { so-language: zxx }
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><b>The prior
probability of theism: A brief argument for an asymmetry. </b>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">In this context, by
“theism” I mean “the hypothesis that there is an omnimax
agent”, and by “omnimax”, I mean “omnipotent, omniscient, and
morally perfect”.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Here, the word
“agent” is used in a broad sense, so as not to exclude views on
which God is a substance but not a being, or is a trinity rather than
a single person, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Let us now introduce
some definitions:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<b>V-functions: F </b><span style="font-weight: normal">is a</span>
<i><span style="font-weight: normal">V-function</span></i> <span style="font-weight: normal">if
</span><b>F</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">is a</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">function</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">that
assigns to different things, situations, states of affairs, etc.,
real values. In this context, “function” is used broadly; in
particular, there is no need for the domain to be a set (it might be
bigger than any set). </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<b>Moral compatibility for V-functions:</b> If <b>F</b> is a
V-function, <b>F</b> is said to be <i>compatible with moral value</i>
if the following conditions are met:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
MM.1.: If E is morally good, then <b>F</b>(E)>0.
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
MM.2.: If E is morally bad, then <b>F</b>(E) < 0.
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
MM.3.: If E1 is morally better than E2, then <b>F</b>(E2) < <b>F</b>(E1).
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<b>Agent</b> <b>V-function compatibility: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">If
</span><b>F</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">is a V-function,
and </span><b>A</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">is an agent,
then </span><b>A</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">is compatible
with </span><b>F </b><span style="font-weight: normal">if the
following conditions are met: </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<span style="font-weight: normal">AF1: If </span><b>F</b><span style="font-weight: normal">(E)>0,
then </span><b>A</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">values E
positively. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<span style="font-weight: normal">AF2: If </span><b>F</b><span style="font-weight: normal">(E)<0,
then </span><b>A</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">values E
negatively (i. e., A disvalues E). </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<span style="font-weight: normal">AF3: If 0 < </span><b>F</b><span style="font-weight: normal">(E2)
< </span><b>F</b><span style="font-weight: normal">(E1), then A
positively values E1 more than </span><b>A</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">positively
values E2. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<span style="font-weight: normal">AF4: If 0 > </span><b>F</b><span style="font-weight: normal">(E2)
> </span><b>F</b><span style="font-weight: normal">(E1), then A
disvalues E1 more than </span><b>A</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">disvalues
E2. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
The introduction of V-functions is not required, but it’s meant to
highlight how much morality constrains the potential value structures
of a hypothetical agent.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
In fact, intuitively, there appear to be many more ways in which a
V-function can be incompatible with moral value than compatible[a],
in the following sense:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
we are told that </span><b>F</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">is
a V-function, but we’re not told anything else about </span><b>F</b>
<span style="font-weight: normal">and we’re not given any other
piece of information, it seems intuitively proper to reckon it’s
</span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">extremely probable </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>F</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">morally
compatible; i. e., the probability that </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>F
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
morally compatible is close to zero or zero. That’s because there
is no particular reason to think that </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>F
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">would
agree with morality, with no further info. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
that holds, then it seems to me the following holds for agents, in
the following sense: </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>A
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
an agent, </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>F</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
a V-function, and </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>A
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
compatible with </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>F
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">(we
have no further information about </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>A
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">or
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>F</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">),
then it’s extremely probable that </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>F</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">morally
compatible. But if </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>F</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">morally
compatible, then (almost certainly, in terms of probability), </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>A
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
not morally perfect (by the way, for similar reasons, it’s also
almost certain that it’s not the case that </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>A
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
maximally evil). </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">What
if we now introduce the information that </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>A
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
omnipotent? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Given
that power does not seem to make any particular preferences more
probable</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">than
others in terms of priors, it’s also the case that it’s almost
certain that </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>A
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
not morally perfect. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Clearly,
the prior of theism is no greater</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">than
the prior of the hypothesis that </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">there
is an omnipotent agent. </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
take that hypothesis to be vastly improbable on its own, in terms of
prior probability. But let’s leave that aside. Even assuming that
that is not so, we may reason as follows: </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Let’s
assume that there is some agent </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>A
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
is omnipotent and is compatible with some V-function </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>F.
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Then
– as sketched above -, it’s almost certain that </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>A
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
not morally perfect. But if </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>A
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
not morally perfect, then it is not the case that there is an agent </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>B
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">who
is morally perfect and omnipotent. It follows that almost certainly,
theism is false. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Alternatively,
we can put it in the following manner (h</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">ere
“</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal">≈”
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">means
that it’s at least very close, in terms of probability): </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">P(Theism
is true)</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">=</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">P(Theism
is true, and there is an omnipotent agent)=P(Theism is true, and</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">there
is an omnipotent agent compatible with a V-function)+P(Theism is
true, and there is an omnipotent agent not compatible with any
V-function)</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">≈</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">P(Theism
is true, and</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">there
is an omnipotent agent compatible with a V-function)=</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">P(Theism
is true </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">│</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">There
is an omnipotent agent compatible with a V-function) * P(There is an
omnipotent agent compatible with a V-function) </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal">≤
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">P(Theism
is true </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal">│</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">There
is an omnipotent agent compatible with a V-function) </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal">≈
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">0.
</span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">We</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">just
need to justify one more step: The probability P(Theism is true, and
there is an omnipotent agent not compatible with any V-function) is
almost zero, because if an omnimax agent </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>A</b></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">exists,
there seems to be (clearly) at least one function that assigns real
values in a way compatible with </span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>A</b></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal">’</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">s
preference structure...but if that’s not so, we</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font face="Liberation Serif, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">can
still make a similar argument without using the V-functions, and
instead talk about agents whose value structure is fully compatible
with moral value. </span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
<font face="Liberation Serif, serif">So, the hypotheses that theism
is false has a prior close to 1, and the hypothesis that theism is
true, a prior close to 0. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
<font face="Liberation Serif, serif">That’s just the prior.
Arguments for or against theism might (and would) affect the
probabilistic assessments we make. After considering the relevant
information available to me to a considerable extent (as always,
limited by the availability of time and cognitive limitations), I
reckon the probability of theism is still almost zero – in fact,
it’s even lower than the prior, given suffering and evil -, but
that’s beyond the scope of this post. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
<font face="Liberation Serif, serif">Granted, someone might consider
a prior with a different background evidence – the prior is not
“prior to everything” -; but I see no problem considering the
prior with the background I’m using, which requires not including
factors such as the existence of humans, evolution, evil, etc., as
part of the background. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
<br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
<br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
<font face="Liberation Serif, serif">[a] In terms of cardinality, the
number of ways is infinite in both cases, and probably an infinity of
the same cardinality, though on the other hand, the number of
human-comprehensible ways is very probably finite (i. e. it’s
bounded above, even if fuzzy, so perhaps “number” is not the best
term), and the number of ways in which it can be incompatible is way
higher – very probably. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
<font face="Liberation Serif, serif">But in any event, I’m not
talking about cardinality.</font></p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-12442109086540730172015-02-11T10:13:00.001-08:002016-07-03T10:58:03.287-07:00Another reply to Craig's metaethical argument (v 1.1.1)<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 5.0.3.2 (Linux)"/>
<meta name="created" content="2015-01-19T00:00:00"/>
<meta name="changed" content="2016-07-03T14:54:56.766939360"/>
<style type="text/css">
@page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; color: #000000; line-height: 120% }
a:link { so-language: zxx }
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" text="#000000" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#6666ff"><b>1. Introduction. </b></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__16_960774861"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
this post, I will assess Craig's metaethical argument</span></span></span></span><a href="#longerreply"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[a]</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
by means of a hypothetical debate</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">between
Bob - a defender of Craig's metaethical argument</span></span></span></span><a href="#longerreply"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[a]</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
and of Craig's version of Divine Command Theory (henceforth, DCT) –
and Alice – a non-theist who believes that the second premise of
Craig's argument is true (the first part is almost the same as </span></span></span></span><a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/craigs-metaethical-argument-dct-and.html"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">this
previous post</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
with minor improvements), at least as she understands the premise –
more on that in the debate. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Alice also believes that the argument from moral evil – at least,
in its evidential version, if there is a significant difference
between the logical and evidential versions – is a decisive
argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, morally
perfect (henceforth, omnimax) being – though she holds that there
are other, independent and also decisive arguments.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Still, the debate below is not about the argument from moral evil,
but – mostly - on Craig's metaethical argument, and his DCT.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">However,
Bob defends Craig's premises not only by relying</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">on
Craig's own defenses, but also by means of other arguments I added in
order to assess more</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">potential
theistic options. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
As you may imagine, I hold that Alice wins the debate, hands down.
But I've been trying to find good arguments to defend Bob's position
as well – to no avail, in my assessment.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Still, I reckon some readers might wonder whether I'm being fair to
Bob – or rather, to Craig -, or think that even if I tried but
failed to find any good arguments in support of his side, there are
better arguments, and I just didn't see them.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
If you are among those readers – or if you just would like to play
Bob's advocate - , I invite you to try to find some of those good
arguments, and improve Bob's case.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
On the other hand, if you think that Bob actually <i>wins</i> the
debate based on the arguments I give, I guess we will just disagree
about that, but I'd like to ask you which one(s) of Bob's arguments
you found persuasive.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Before I go on, I would like to clarify that:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>1.</b> I don't claim that Craig holds all of the views defended by
Bob. In fact, he doesn't. Bob is a fictional character. When I
attribute a stance or claim to Craig, I will make that clear,
providing relevant links and/or references if needed (e. g., I won't
provide a reference or link if I say Craig claims that God exists
because it's obvious that he does, but I will if I say he has some
specific belief about the meaning of 'objective' in this context).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2.
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't claim that the views I express here are original. In fact, I
took most of the ideas from other sources</span></span></span></span><a href="#Acknowledgement"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[A]</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
and while I came up with several idea, I have no good reason to think
I'm the first one to have done so. In fact, that's very probably not
the case when it comes to most of the ideas in this post.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.99cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>3.
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It
might be argued that only Craig's theory about moral
duties/obligations – namely, that they are constituted by God's
commands – should be called Craig's “Divine Command Theory”,
whereas Craig's theory about goodness should go by another name.</span></span></span></span><a href="#flannagan"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[-1]</span></u></span></span></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.99cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Regardless of whether that's the most accurate terminology, nothing
substantive hinges on that, and as a convention and for the purpose
of simplifying terminology, I will use the expressions “Craig's
DCT”, “Craig's Divine Command Theory”, or similar ones, to talk
about his theory about moral ontology, including the theory about
moral duties, goodness, values, and so on.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#6666ff"><b>2. The hypothetical debate. </b></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">No</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">omnimax
being exists. There are several</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">ways
to see that, but – for example -, an omnimax being surely would not
create – at the very last - a universe</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">with
so much suffering – let along undeserved suffering -, or with moral
agents with an imperfect moral sense. They would have flawless</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">moral knowledge. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, she would prevent at least many of the instances of moral
evil that actually occur – well, actually, she wouldn't need to
intervene because she would not create beings in any way inclined to
do evil in the first place, but in any event, if such beings existed
even if not created by her, she just wouldn't allow that.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
You're mistaken. God exists. And he is the greatest conceivable
being, so in particular, he is an omnimax being. In fact, the very
existence of moral evil implies</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
God exists. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
There is a very important point.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Why would the
existence of moral evil imply that God exists? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">For a number of
reasons, as explained by William Lane Craig. He argues as follows: </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P1:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not
exist. </span></span></span></span><a href="#law"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[0]</span></u></span></span></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P2:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Objective
moral values and duties do exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>C:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">God
exists. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
I'm familiar with Craig's metaethical argument and his defenses of
it, and I agree that P2 is true, but I see no good reason to think P1
is true. W</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">hy
do you believe P1? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Only
theism can provide an ontological grounding of moral goodness and/or
of moral obligations</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
– </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
Craig's DCT does -, in the sense of informative identification. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">For
example, moral goodness is identified with some qualities of God –
or resemblance to such qualities, if one is talking about moral
goodness in creatures -, whereas moral obligations are identified
with God's commands. And moral values like justice, forbearance,
love, etc., are good because they're found in God.</span></span></span></span><a href="#harris"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[2]</span></u></span></span></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">This
is akin to the way in which, say, water is identified with H2O, heat
with molecular motion, or – to use Craig's own example – the way
in which a meter – in the past – was identified with the distance
between two lines on a bar in Paris. </span></span></span></span><a href="#foundation"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[1]</span></u></span></span></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="circular"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Different
people in different contexts mean different things by 'God'. So,
let's be clear. What do you mean? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__44_1135762541"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
By 'God' I mean what Craig means, i. e., the greatest conceivable
being. In particular, given that moral goodness is a great-making
property, God is morally perfect <a href="#harris">[2]</a><a href="#define">[3]</a>
and that entails he is maximally morally good. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Okay,
so I will grant the water and heat identifications for the sake of
the argument, but let me point out that not having an informative
identification account is not a problem (see, for example, </span></span></span></span><a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/morality-and-ontological-grounding-some.html"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">this
post</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>).
</b></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
aside, the account of moral goodness given by DCT</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
as you describe it, is not</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
only not </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">informative,
but it seems to be circular. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
fact, the account identifies</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness with resemblance to</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">God
in some respects – or </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">with
some qualities of God, or with </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">resemblance
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
some qualities of God, if you prefer; </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">this
is not crucial to my objection</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
-, defines the word 'God'</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
'the greatest conceivable being', and uses 'great' in a way such that
'God is morally good'</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
a conceptual truth<a href="#harris">[2]</a>, and moreover, moral
goodness is a great-making property<a href="#define">[3]</a>. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">As
Craig says, asking why God is good is like asking why bachelors are
unmarried.<a href="#harris">[2]</a> But then, identifying moral
goodness with resemblance to God seems akin to identifying being
unmarried with resemblance to being who – by definition – is a
bachelor and has such-and-such properties. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
'God'</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
defined in</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">terms
of </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">greatness,
</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">not
in terms of </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness, </span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
it seems to me that a proper informative account of bachelorhood
would identify being a bachelor with being unmarried and having one
or more other properties. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
that goes in the other direction. DCT seems similar not to an
identification of bachelorhood to</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">unmarriedness
plus one or more other properties, but to an identification of
unmarriedness in terms of bachelorhood, or more precisely, in terms
of resemblance to a certain bachelor. That seems viciously circular. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
disagree. I see no circularity problem. I don't know what you're
getting at. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Okay,
let's me raise the circularity issue from a different perspective. I
would ask you what</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">greatness
</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
– that is, I'm asking for</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
ontological foundation of greatness, in the sense of informative
identification. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If you reply that greatness is resemblance to God in some respects –
or to some qualities of God, etc. -, and then you define 'God' as
'the greatest conceivable being', then there is a circularity
problem. Moreover, it seems that to be great is to be morally good
and also have such-and-such properties (for some 'such-and-such').
But according to DCT, to be morally good is to resemble the maximally
great being in some respects - or some qualities of the greatest
conceivable being, or something along those lines.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Do you see the problem?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
To be great is to be morally good and to also have such-and-such
properties, and to be morally good is to resemble the greatest
conceivable being. That seems circular.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
You misunderstand the account. There is no circularity. For example,
one might stipulate</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
– </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
it was in the past – that to be a meter long is to be as long as
the distance between two lines on a certain standard bar. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If someone were to then ask what it is to be a meter long, it would
be informative to tell him that to be a meter long is to be as long
as the distance between two lines on the bar in question.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">informative.
The bar itself – or more precisely, the part of the bar between the
two lines - has the property of being a meter long, and indeed it is
the paradigm of a meter. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Similarly,
God has the property of being morally good – indeed, to a maximal
degree</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">-,
but also</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">God
is the paradigm of moral goodness, and that is not problematic. The
account of moral goodness provided by DCT is informative. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
Let's say 'oldmeter'</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">defined</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
a distance equal to the distance between the lines on the bar in
question – </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
bar, over there, in Paris. <a href="#meter">[4]</a> </span></i></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
someone asked</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">what
an oldmeter is, it would</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">proper
and informative to tell her that to be an oldmeter long is to be as
long as the distance between the lines on </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
bar, over there, in Paris.</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#meter">[4]</a>,
and/or that an oldmeter is a distance equal to the distance between
the lines on </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
bar, over there, in Paris.</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#meter">[4]</a>,
etc. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">On the other hand,
it would be improper, circular, and not informative to tell her that
to be an oldmeter long is to be as long as the distance between two
lines that are at a distance of one oldmeter, or that to be an
oldmeter long is to be as long as the distance between the lines on a
bar that has two lines at a distance of one oldmeter. That's what DCT
looks like, as you described it.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Do you see the
problem?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
I see, and know I understand in which way y</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">ou
misunderstand</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
account. There is no circularity in the account of moral goodness
provided by DCT. The account does not identify moral goodness with
resemblance to a being that has such-and-such properties, or more
precisely the property of greatness to a maximal degree or a maximum
degree. Rather, the account identifies moral goodness</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">with
resemblance to </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">God</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">the
maximally great being that actually exist</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
with respect to some relevant qualities. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
the case of the meter –</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">or
the oldmeter in your example-, the way of identifying the paradigm
was to say it was the distance between two lines on </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
bar, over there in Paris. </span></i><a href="#meter"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[4]</span></span></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-weight: normal">In the case of moral goodness –
or even greatness -, the way of identifying the paradigm is to say
it's </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">the greatest
conceivable being, that being who actually exists. </span></i>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
What's the problem?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="oldmeter"></a>
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">In that case, the
definition of 'God' as 'the greatest conceivable being' only plays a
role as a means of </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">identifying
the object that is the paradigm</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal">,
and</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">it's not essential to
the account. That avoids circularity but still leaves us</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">in
the dark as to what moral goodness is. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I don't see why. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Let us assume now and
for the sake of the argument that there is an omnipotent, omniscient,
maximally loving and kind being. Let's call that being 'Jane'. </span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">To
be clear, I just picked an – assumed – actual being by listing
some of her properties - enough properties to identify her uniquely
-, and then used a proper name – Jane – to name that being. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><a name="__DdeLink__48_1135762541"></a>
So, Jane is the only omnipotent, omniscient, maximally loving and
kind being that exists.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Let
us now pick the</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">meter
bar in Paris – that specific bar, which is still over there, in
Paris </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#meter">[</a><a href="#meter">4]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
– </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
let's define 'oldmeter' to be a distance equal to the distance
between the two lines on that bar. That is a stipulative definition.
Let us call the bar 'Ted'. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
I have three questions:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__50_1135762541"></a>
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>1. </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none">Why
is Jane morally good?</span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2.
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Why
is Jane maximally great?</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>3.
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Why
is the distance between the two bars on Ted one oldmeter? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Bob: </b>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>1.</b></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is God, 'God' is defined as the greatest conceivable being, and it's
a conceptual truth that maximal greatness entails moral goodness. So,
Jane is morally good. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>2.</b></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is God, and 'God' is defined as the greatest conceivable being. So,
Jane is maximally great. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>3.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Ted
is the bar over there, in Paris </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#meter">[</a><a href="#meter">4]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
because that was stipulated – i. e., 'Ted' is the name given to the
bar - , and 'oldmeter' is defined as the distance between the two
lines on the bar over there, in Paris </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#meter">[</a><a href="#meter">4]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
So, the distance between the two lines in Ted is one oldmeter. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Alice: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Do
you see why your reply to the third question is very different from
your reply to the first and second questions? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Bob: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">No.
Why? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Alice: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Your
reply to the third</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">question
actually </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">informs</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">me
why the distance is one oldmeter, by explaining to me how 'oldmeter'
was defined, and that 'Ted' is the name given to the bar, etc. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, your first and second replies </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">leave
me in the dark as to why Jane is morally good, or great, let alone
maximally great. </span></i></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
fact, given your definition of 'God' as 'the greatest conceivable
being', the first part of your replies – namely, </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">“</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is God” - actually means</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
“</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is the greatest conceivable being”. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
I'm asking </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">why
</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is morally good, and </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">why
</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is maximally great, so insisting that Jane is the greatest
conceivable being </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">leaves
me in the dark</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
to </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">why</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is maximally great, or morally good. Your reply is </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">uninformative.
</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">You
just repeat that she is maximally great, but you do not explain why
she is maximally great. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">From
a slightly different perspective, the term 'oldmeter' is
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">stipulatively
defined </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
a distance equal to the distance between the two lines </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">on
the bar over there, in Paris</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><a href="#meter"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[4]</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
so if somebody asks why the distance between the two lines </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">on
the bar over there, in Paris</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><a href="#meter"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[4]</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
is one oldmeter long, it is a proper reply to explain that 'oldmeter'
is </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">defined
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
a distance equal to the distance between the two lines </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">on
the bar over there, in Paris</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><a href="#meter"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[4]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
– </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
of course, that distance in question is equal to itself. </span></span></span></span><a href="#meter2"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[b]</span></u></span></span></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, the terms 'morally good', and 'great' are not </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">defined
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
any way in DCT</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">–
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">they
are ordinary</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">terms</span></span></span></span><a href="#great"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[c]</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
and left undefined -, so it would be improper to answer the question
of why</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">the
only omnipotent, omniscient, maximally kind and loving being that
exists</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
is morally good – or why she is great – by bringing up the</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">definition
of 'God' as 'the greatest conceivable being and saying that the being
in question is God. That would not answer </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">why</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is morally good, or maximally great. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
his reply to</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Harris</span></span></span></span><a href="#harris"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[2]</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
Craig says</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
asking why God is good is like asking why bachelors are unmarried.
Yes, granted, as long as one keeps that definition of 'God' as 'the
greatest conceivable being', it would be like asking why bachelors
are unmarried – assuming that it's a conceptual truth that maximal
greatness entails moral goodness, but I'm granting that -, but on the
other hand, asking why </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
good, or why </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">the
only</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">omnipotent
entity that exist </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">–
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">specific
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">entity,
assuming she exists </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">–
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
morally good, is not at all like asking why bachelors are unmarried. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
DCT is to avoid vicious circularity, it can't rely on the 'greatest
conceivable being' definition of the word 'God' to answer questions
like the ones I asked</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">(e.
g., 'Why is Jane</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">morally
good?', 'Why is </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">the
only omnipotent being</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">maximally
great?', etc.).</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't think that Craig made any mistakes in the context with the
debate with Harris</span></span></span></span><a href="#harris"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[2]</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Of course, the ball has to stop somewhere, and for Craig – and for
me – it stops with God.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">But again, that
leaves us in the dark as to </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">why</span></i>
<span style="font-weight: normal">Jane is morally good. It's
uninformative. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">It is somewhat
informative. But how much information we get is an epistemic matter.
Craig's metaethical argument is an ontological metaethical argument.
The account does not need to be as informative as, say, “water is
H2O”. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">You're the one who
brought up informative identification!</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Anyway, I have another question:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>4. </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none">What
makes it the case that Jane maximally great? (or if you prefer, what
makes the statement “Jane is maximally great” true?)</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
This is a question about truth-makers. What makes the statement 'Jane
is maximally great' true?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Remember, I stipulated that Jane is the only omnipotent, omniscient,
maximally living and kind being that exists.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Bob: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is maximally loving and kind, and those are all great-making
properties, which she has to a maximal degree. Jane also has power
and knowledge to a maximal degree – that's all great-making. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, Jane is also maximally morally good – moral goodness is
another great-making property -, and generally, Jane has all of the
great-making properties to a maximal degree.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
That's what makes it the case that Jane is maximally great: the fact
that she has all of the great-making properties to a maximal degree.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Alice: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Alright,
so here's another question: </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>5. </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none">What
makes it the case that Jane is morally good? (or if you prefer, what
makes the statement “Jane is morally good” true?)</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><a name="__DdeLink__52_1135762541"></a>
Remember, moral goodness is a great-making property, so it can't be
that greatness is a morally good-making property. That would be
viciously circular. So, what makes it the case that the only
omnipotent, omniscient, maximally kind and loving being – i. e.,
Jane -, is also morally good?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Bob: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is the paradigm of moral goodness. To be morally good is to resemble
Jane in some respects. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Alice: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
you seem to be suggesting that what makes Jane morally good is the
fact that Jane resembles Jane in some respects. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Bob: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
might be a way to see it, though I'd rather say that as the paradigm
of moral goodness, she is necessarily morally good, indeed maximally
so and morally perfect. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Alice: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
either way, what makes her the paradigm of moral goodness? What makes
the statement 'Jane is the paradigm of moral goodness' true? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<span style="font-weight: normal">Unlike the meter and the meter bar,
'moral goodness' is not </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">defined
</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal">in terms of Jane, so
it's not true by definition of the words. You can't properly make
that definitional move. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Bob: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">It</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
a necessary brute fact that Jane is the paradigm of moral goodness.
The ball has to stop somewhere. Jane is God. The ball stops with God.
</span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Alice: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
what makes the statement true? In virtue of what is Jane morally
good? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Bob: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
think you're missing the point, conflating truth-making with
informative identification. Informative identification is not the
same as truth-making. DCT offers an account in terms of informative
identification. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Alright,
but in that case, I'm going to point out that the point remains that
DCT is different from the '</span></span></span></span><a href="#oldmeter"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">oldmeter</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">'
identification in that we get a proper explanation as to why the
distance between the two lines on the bar</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#meter">[</a><a href="#meter">4]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
one </span></span></span></span><a href="#oldmeter"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">oldmeter</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
but on the other hand, DCT leaves us in the dark as to</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">why
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
- the only omnipotent, omniscient, maximally good and kind entity
that exists - is the paradigm of moral goodness. It provides no
explanation whatever as to why she is the paradigm of moral goodness,
or what makes the statement “Jane is the paradigm of moral
goodness” true. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Again,
w</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">hether
the account provides us with a good amount of information – like
“Water is H2O” - is not the point. You're confusing ontology with
epistemology. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I'm
not confusing ontology with epistemology. I was just going with your
explanation of what an ontological foundation is, and your examples
of water, heat, and a meter. You're the one who brought up the
informative identification stuff. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob
: </b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
point remains that theism</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">provides
an ontological grounding in the sense that there is some being that
exists in the mind-independent world and that serves as a paradigm of
moral goodness. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
why would there have to be a paradigm? Is there a paradigm of cruelty
as well? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Without
a paradigm of moral goodness, there would be nothing in the world
that would make moral statements like 'Agent A is morally good'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">or
'Agent B has a moral obligation to do X' true, or at least
objectively true. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__50_1676763031"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
Okay, so this is about truth-makers after all. But then again, what
makes “Jane is morally good” or “Jane is the paradigm of moral
goodness” true? And again, what about a paradigm of cruelty? Is
there one of those as well? Does it exist necessarily too? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">You're
confused. The point is that without a paradigm, there would be no
ontological foundation of objective moral values or duties. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Do
you mean that nothing would make statements like “the Holocaust was
immoral” true, or that the property 'immorality' would not be the
same as a property we may describe in non-moral terms? Or something
else? And again, what about cruelty? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">I'm
saying there is no ontological foundation. I already explained it. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
then, you failed to adequately respond to my objections above, or to
explain it in a way that is clear enough for a reasonable reader to
grasp. Or address the “cruelty” parallel. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
disagree. And Craig's arguments show why without God, there would be
no ontological foundation of moral goodness, moral duties, moral
values, and so on. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't think they do – not even close. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
But let me raise the objection from cruelty – which you keep
failing to address - in a somewhat different manner:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Craig
holds that if God did not exist, then rape would still be cruel.</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#cruelty">[</a><a href="#cruelty">5]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
the ontological foundation of cruelty is not</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">God,
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">on
his theory. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, let's introduce two definitions:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
'C-God': = an essentially maximally cruel, omnipotent being.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
'c-god': an essentially maximally cruel being.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Now, let's make a parallel argument:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P1.2:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
C-God did not exist, then objective cruelty would not exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P2.2:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Objective
cruelty does exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>C.2:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">C-God
does exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
leaving aside other problems, why would the foundation of objective
cruelty be essentially omnipotent? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">No
particular reason, but the same applies to the ontological foundation
of moral goodness, if an agent were the ontological foundation of
moral goodness. Why would she have to be omnipotent? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
You might try an argument from contingency, but that argument fails.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Regardless,
one</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">may
remove the condition of essential omnipotence from the cruelty
argument, and still argue on the basis of objective cruelty for the
existence a c-god. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="cgod"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P1.3:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
no c-god existed, then objective cruelty would not exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P2.3:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Objective
cruelty does exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>C.3:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">At
least one c-god does exist. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
And so, there exists at least one essentially maximally cruel being –
a c-god.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
But it should be obvious that something is very wrong with that
argument, and that – just in case – biting the bullet and
suggesting that, say, perhaps Lucifer is maximally cruel wouldn't
work. But I offer to show why biting the bullet is a terrible idea,
if you like.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
why would the ontological foundation of objective cruelty have to be
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">essentially
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">maximally
cruel? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">One
may mirror the question: If an agent were the ontological foundation
of moral values and duties, why would she have to be </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">essentially
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">maximally
good, or essentially maximally great, etc.? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Given
that the metaethical argument concludes that an entity with such
</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">essential
</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">properties
exists, it's proper to object to it by presenting a mirror argument
that also posits an </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">essentially
</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">maximally
cruel agent. It would be up to the defender of the metaethical
argument to show that there is a relevant difference here. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, as long as you don't offer a good reason for the distinction, I
will keep the essentialness condition in the argument from objective
cruelty.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
However, even if you managed to offer a good reason for the
distinction and for removing the essentialness condition from the
argument from objective cruelty, one may still make an argument that
goes from the existence of objective cruelty to the existence of a
maximally cruel being – even if not essentially so -, and that
objection is <i>still </i>a problem for Craig's metaethical argument.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, why should I remove the essentialness condition.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Let's
leave essentialness aside; it's not the point. Why do you think that
cruelty is objective, in the relevant sense of 'objective'? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Because
it meets Craig's requirements, going by his own explanation of
objectivity. In fact, one may mirror some of</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Craig's
arguments on the matter of objective morality.</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#objective1">[</a><a href="#objective1">6]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">For
example, the Holocaust was cruel. And it would have been cruel even
if the Nazis had won the war and convinced everyone that it wasn't
cruel. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, whether an action is cruel, or whether a person is a cruel
person, are matters of fact, not matters of taste, or opinion.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, cruelty is objective in the relevant sense of 'objective' – i.
e., the sense in which the word 'objective' is used in Craig's
metaethical argument.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">While
you're considering </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">some</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
Craig's points in that context, Craig</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">also
identifies objectivity with mind-independence.</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#dependence">[</a><a href="#dependence">7]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
if a person is a cruel person, that's a character trait – it seems
that's the property of a person's </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">mind</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">-,
and as such, it's mind-dependent. So, on the
mind-independence/mind-dependence distinction, it seems to me cruelty
is not objective. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__25_960774861"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Craig
explains what he means by 'objective' in the context of his defense
of the metaethical argument</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#objective1">[</a><a href="#objective1">6]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
and he did not specify mind-independence. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Now,
it's true that he believes also that the word 'objective' means
'mind-independent'. </span></span></span></span><a href="#dependence"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[6]</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
his belief is not a required condition in the conception of
objectivity that he explains when defending his metaethical argument.
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#objective1">[</a><a href="#objective1">6]</a></span></u></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Furthermore,
it seems Craig's belief about the meaning of 'objective' is mistaken
– remember, he makes it clear in the context of his metaethical
argument that he's trying to capture [one of] the ordinary,
colloquial meaning[s] of the word 'objective', rather than giving</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">a
stipulative technical definition. And the ordinary meaning of
'objective' in question is </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not
'</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">mind-independent'.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
fact, while Craig says that he takes 'objective' to mean
'mind-independent', he makes other claims that are </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">incompatible</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">with
that alleged meaning. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
For example:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>i.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
his reply to a question about the metaethical argument, Craig says:
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#objective2">[</a><a href="#objective2">8]</a></span></u></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; line-height: 150%">
“<span style="font-style: normal">Objective” means “independent
of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective”
means “just a matter of personal opinion.”</span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>ii.</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
</span></span></span></span>his defense of the metaethical
argument<a href="#objective7">[9]</a>, he says that something is
objective if it's not dependent on people’s opinion, while it's
subjective if it is so dependent.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>iii.</b>
In his reply to a question about objectivity and mind-independence,
Craig explains that on Berkeley's view, the whole world would be
mind-dependent, and holds that 'objective' means 'mind-independent'.
<a href="#dependence"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[7]</span></span></span></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="dependence1"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Now,
surely, even if Berkeley's view</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">were</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">correct,
it would</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not
be </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">a
matter of personal opinion whether, say, Hitler hated the Jewish
people, or whether Hitler caused pain to other people, or whether I'm
a Christian, or whether William Lane Craig believes that Yahweh
exists. All of those matters</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">are</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">matters
of fact, not matters of opinion, </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
would be</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">matters
of fact, not matters of opinion, even if Berkeley were correct. So,
those matters</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">would
be objective matters in the sense of 'objective' that is relevant
here, even on Berkeleyan idealism – even if the whole world were
mind-dependent. So, it is not the case that 'objective' means
'mind-independent' in the context of the metaethical argument. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><a name="objective9"></a>
In fact, Craig is confusing two very different issues:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>1.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Whether
something is mind-dependent in the sense of being generated by a mind</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">(e.
g., dreams, to use one of Craig's examples</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#dependence">[</a><a href="#dependence">7]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">).</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Whether
a </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">matter,
or subject, or issue </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
a matter of fact – i. e., objective, in the relevant sense -, or a
matter of taste or opinion – i. e., subjective, in the relevant
sense. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In any case, and for example, just as there is a fact of the matter
as to whether the Holocaust was immoral – it was -, there is a fact
of the matter as to whether it was cruel – it was.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Furthermore,
just as whether a person is </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">mentally
ill </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
an objective matter – never mind mental illness is a mental
property -, and whether she is a good person is an objective matter,
so is whether she is a cruel person. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
The point remains that cruelty is objective in the relevant sense of
the matter – that is, the sense of 'objective' relevant in the
context of the metaethical argument -, and so are some mental
properties.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Bob: </b>When you make assessments of objectivity “if Berkeley's
view were correct”, you're making assessments in a counterpossible
scenario, because it's not possible that Berkeley's view is correct.
Why do you think it's proper to make such assessments in this
context?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">It seems intuitively
clear to me. But in any case, when you make assessments of
objectivity “if God did not exist”, you're making assessments in
a possible scenario – because God does not exist -, but which you
believe is counterpossible. So, I may also ask: Why do </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">you</span></i>
<span style="font-weight: normal">think it's proper to make such
assessments in this context? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">God exists, but that
aside, I think it's proper to make assessments like that because it's
intuitively clear, and in fact it seems much philosophy is done in
that manner, without controversy. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I then say the same
regarding my use of a counterpossible scenario above. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Fair enough. Back to
the subject of objectivity, I don't think Craig made any mistakes or
confused any issues, but I actually agree that</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">there
is objective cruelty, in the relevant sense of 'objective'. I was
just asking why you thought that. But why do you think that that is</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">a problem for a</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">defender
of Craig's metaethical argument? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Because
of the parallel argument I raised <a href="#cgod">earlier</a>. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
are you not making some circular argument here, by </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">defining
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">a
c-god as essentially maximally cruel? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">No,</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I'm
merely mirroring Craig's argument, for a </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">reductio.
</span></i></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
fact, Craig</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">does</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">argue
for the existence of</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">an
essentially maximally morally good being, on the basis of the facts</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
there</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
objective moral goodness and there are objective moral duties, and
his first premise. I'm making a mirror argument from a similar first
premise and the fact that there is objective cruelty, to the
conclusion that there is an essentially maximally cruel being. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
it's not even required to introduce and define 'c-god'. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#cgod">If
you prefer, you may simply substitute 'an essentially maximally cruel
being' for 'c-god' in the argument from </a><a href="#cgod">objective
cruelty</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
Okay, so let me say that it's </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">clear
to me that something is wrong with that argument from objective
cruelty. However, I'm curious, so I accept your offer. Why would</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">biting
the bullet be</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">such
a bad idea for a defender of Craig's</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">metaethical
argument, in your assessment? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">There
are several reasons, but for example, when Craig said that rape would
still be cruel if God did not</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">exist,
he did not say anything</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">along
the lines of 'as long as a maximally cruel being existed'. He surely
didn't have that in mind. That's understandable, since it should be
obvious that no maximally cruel being is required for an act of rape
to be cruel. Of course, it should be equally obvious that no
maximally good being – let alone a command from her – is required
for an act of rape to be immoral, though</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Craig
will never</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">realize
that. But I digress. In any case, it seems clear to me that Craig
would also reject the argument from objective cruelty to the
existence of a maximally cruel being. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That's
not good enough a reason to think it's a bad idea for a defender of
Craig's metaethical argument to bite the bullet. A person may defend
Craig's metaethical argument without agreeing with all of the claims
he makes when defending it. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
Fair enough</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
then I will give you another reason: if the argument from objective
cruelty succeeds, that entails that either there is a </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">necessary
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">maximally
cruel being – which is surely in conflict with the theistic view
the defender of the metaethical argument is committed to -, or at
least that in every possible world in which an act of cruelty is
committed, there is a contingent essentially maximally cruel being.
But that is clearly not true. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">For
example, it's clearly possible on theism that in some world W, God
creates a few beings, and eventually one of them behaves cruelly, but
he is not </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">maximally
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">cruel,
let alone essentially so. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Additionally,
the conclusion of the argument from objective cruelty plus theism
entails that God actualized</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">an
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">essentially
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">maximally
cruel being. Why would God do </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">?
(but</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">even
if one removes the essentialness condition, biting the bullet remains
a bad idea, for the reasons given above and others). </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Interesting
arguments. In any case, as I said, it's clear to me that something is
wrong with the argument from objective cruelty to a c-god, so we
don't need to keep debating this point. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Okay,
so what's your reply to the argument from objective cruelty? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I'll
address that in a moment, but first, </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">let
me point out that if cruelty is merely the absence of kindness, then
there is no need for an ontological foundation of cruelty. There is
just an ontological foundation of kindness. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Leaving
aside other issues, it's not the case that cruelty is merely the
absence of kindness. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
To see this, let A and B be two beings with no kindness whatsoever,
as follows:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
A is completely indifferent to the pain or suffering of others, for
their own sake. For instance, if A sees a man torturing and killing
children for pleasure and A can stop that easily and effortlessly, A
feels no motivation whatsoever to do so in order to help, and lets it
happen unless he has some other reason to intervene (e. g., if
someone will give A something A wants if and only if A helps those
children).
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
On the other hand, A has no interest whatsoever in inflicting any
pain or suffering, either – not for their own sake. A might
sometime sinflict pain, etc., in self-defense if needed – for
example -, but only as a means to an end – i. e., to defend himself
-, not because he cares whether someone else suffers. Agent A simply
doesn't care about the suffering, happiness, etc., of other agents,
at all.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
As it happens, A does not inflict any pain or suffering, since A does
not care about such things for their own sake, and there happens to
be no further motive for A to do that.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Agent
B has no kindness whatsoever, either. However, unlike A, B</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">revels
in horribly torturing other agents – human beings - just for
pleasure, and he does so all the time. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
B is surely extremely cruel. It might be debated whether A is cruel,
but even if A is cruel, surely B</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">more</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">cruel
than A. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Yet, if cruelty were merely the absence of kindness, two agents that
are equal with respect to kindness would be also equal with respect
to cruelty, and A and B are equal with respect to kindness – i. e.,
they both have none at all -, but they are not equal with respect to
cruelty.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Hence, it is not the case that cruelty is merely the absence of
kindness.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#cgod">the
argument from objective cruelty to a c-god r</a><a href="#cgod">emains
a problem for the </a><a href="#cgod">defender of Craig's metaethical
argument</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Alright</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">,
so the argument from objective cruelty might be a bit of a challenge
after all. But there is an answer to it, which defeats the challenge
rather easily. To see this, let's consider – for example –
cruelty in the context of whether a person is a cruel person (cruel
actions are handled similarly); i. e., as a character trait. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">There
is a </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>metaphysically
necessary</i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
connection between a person's feelings, memories, cognitive capacity,
dispositions to act, and generally mental traits described without
the word 'cruel' or any synonyms, and the issue of whether he is
cruel, in the following sense: </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Suppose Jack1 is in possible world W1, and Jack2 is in W2, and Jack1
has the same feelings, memories, cognitive capacity, dispositions to
act and generally mental traits – all of that described without the
word 'cruel' or any synonyms - in W1 as Jack2 does in W2. Then, they
are equally cruel. Maybe neither of them is cruel, or maybe they both
are. But it is not possible that one is cruel, but the other one is
not, or that they're both cruel but to different degrees.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
If you think otherwise, and you think one needs to add that they make
the same choices, then let's add that condition. But that is not the
point. The point is that we may describe a person's mind as sketched
above without using the word 'cruel' or any synonyms (nor 'cruelly',
etc.), and any two people who are equal with respect to that
description, are equal with respect to cruelty.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, my suggestion is that cruelty is informatively identified with
having such-and-such traits – as described above -, and whatever
the 'such-and-such' contains. Slightly more precisely, to be a cruel
person is to have the dispositions to act and/or feel in
such-and-such ways under such-and-such circumstances, and/or actually
carrying out the deeds, so something along those lines.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">Granted,
this is not a very </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>informative
</i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">account
– not nearly as informative as, say, “water is H2O” -, but that
is not the point, either. The point is that the property of being
cruel is plausibly</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>the
same property </i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">as
the property of having such-and-such dispositions, feelings, and/or
[perhaps, though I doubt it] having already made such-and-such
choices, etc. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">It
is a complex property, perhaps and infinite disjunction of
conjunctions of other properties, but that's what it is. No </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>further</i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">ontological
foundation is required. So, that's a plausible</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">ontological
foundation of objective cruelty. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="moralgoodness"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Alright,
but in that case, </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
– </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
a character trait - may well be a complex property, involving having
such-and-such dispositions to act, feelings, etc., described without
using 'morally good' or any moral terms (i. e., without using the
terms 'good', 'bad', 'wrong', 'right', 'morally permissible',
'morally obligatory', 'morally impermissible', 'goodness', 'badness',
'wrongness', etc.) . Moral goodness in the sense of 'a good
situation', etc., is handled similarly, identifying it with some
features of the situation. And if you want a unified account –
which I'm not sure is a good idea, but that aside -, then a
disjunction of the two can do the job. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In fact, the view that being a morally good person is the same as
being disposed to be kind in such-and-such situations and to
such-and-such agents, being caring and loving – or disposed to be
caring and loving, etc. - towards such-and-such beings and in
such-and-such situations, and so on, seems intuitively plausible.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
On the other hand, the idea that to be morally good is to resemble a
certain specific being in certain respects is much less plausible,
not to mention the fact that we have excellent reasons – decisive
ones – to conclude that such being does not exist.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">To
be clear, I am </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">committed
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
the</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">informative
identification of moral goodness that I sketched above. I have no
problem recognizing that I do not know what the objective foundation
of moral goodness</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
(see, for example, </span></span></span></span><a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/morality-and-ontological-grounding-some.html"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">this
post</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>).
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
sort of identification I just suggested is just one option. My point
is that </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">perhaps
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness is that, and </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">at
least </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
identification is no less plausible than the identification contained
in DCT, and no less informative. Or maybe there is no informative
identification at all – the ball has to stop somewhere, right? But
the point is that the alternative I sketched above is more plausible
than the one provided by DCT, and no less plausible than your
proposed account of cruelty. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Granted,
without identifying the 'such and such', and the 'etc.', the account
I suggested</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">does
not provide a very informative account, but again, there is </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">no
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">such
burden on my part (see, for example, </span></span></span></span><a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/morality-and-ontological-grounding-some.html"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">this
post</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">),
and moreover, the account provided by DCT is not more informative,
since it tells us that to be morally good is to resemble God in some
respects, but it does not specify what those respects are, the extent
of the resemblance, etc. Furthermore, your proposed account of
cruelty also leaves the 'such-and-such' open. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
disagree of course about the plausibility of such views, and about
the existence of God. But that aside, here's a problem for your
suggestion: you're reducing moral goodness to non-moral properties.
That just does not work. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
you mean that I'm suggesting (though I'm not committed to the
identification, as I pointed out) identifying moral goodness with
properties describable in not moral [or not clearly moral] terms,
like 'kind', 'loving', etc., then that is true. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">you're
doing that too</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
by claiming that moral goodness is resemblance of some qualities of
the only being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and maximally kind and
loving. Remember, on pain of </span></span></span></span><a href="#circular"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">circularity</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
you can't reply to that by appealing to the definition of 'God' –
or, in any case, I can ask you about the ontological foundation of
greatness. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, you also are identifying <i>cruelty</i> with properties
describable in terms not involving the word 'cruelty', or a synonyms.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob:</b> Moral goodness is identified, on DCT, with some qualities
of God, and even if I don't define 'God' in moral terms, he is indeed
morally perfect. But you're identifying moral goodness with something
that is not good, or not essentially good, like having some
dispositions.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Actually,
I'm not committed to the identification I proposed – I'm just
saying it's more plausible than DCT</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">-,
but that aside, you're begging the question here by saying that those
qualities are not good, or not essentially good. I'm suggesting that
maybe</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">those qualities
(including dispositions to act and/or</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">feel
in such-and-such ways, etc.) are </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">the
same </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
moral goodness. This is not a semantic theory, but an ontological
identification, which is semantically neutral. Just as what you're
doing by proposing DCT. Objecting on the basis that those qualities
are not morally good or not essentially morally good would be like
objecting to DCT on the basis that God is not morally good or not
essentially morally good, because you just identified her as the only
omnipotent, omniscient, maximally kind and loving being, without
using moral terms like, say, moral goodness, or greatness. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Now,
if you </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">do</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">include
greatness or moral goodness in your definition of “God”, and then
you use that inclusion to attempt to make a distinction with regard
to which one of us – if either – is identifying moral goodness
with something allegedly non-moral or not essentially moral, you have
a<a href="#circular"> circularity problem </a>again. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, your objection fails – or else, a relevantly similar objection
to DCT succeeds –; pick your choice.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, for that matter I may parallel your objection and say
you're proposing identifying cruelty with properties that are not
essentially cruel.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
There is a relevant difference between the foundation of objective
cruelty that I suggest and the foundation of objective moral goodness
that you suggest: one is semantically closed, the other isn't. While
Craig is not making a semantic but an ontological metaethical
argument, in this particular case semantic closure shows that my
suggestion in the case of cruelty is correct or probably correct,
whereas you don't have the same semantic support for your suggestion
with regard to the ontological foundation of moral goodness. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't see any clear and relevant semantic differences. Could you
please elaborate on your objection, and defend it? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Alright,
let's consider a few examples, where all of the people involved are
adult human beings acting of their own free will. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><b>S1:</b></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jack
likes</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">torturing
people just for fun, and does it every day. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let's consider the questions:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Q1.1</b>: Is Jack a cruel person?
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Q1.2:</b> Is Jack a morally good person?
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Q1.3:</b> Is Jack a morally bad person?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
The answers are, of course, 'yes', 'no', and 'yes'.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, there is a significant difference:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In the case of Q1.1, the question is semantically closed, in the
sense that “I know S1 is true, but is Jack a cruel person?” would
be similar to “I know that Jack is a bachelor, but is he
unmarried?”.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
On the other hand, Q1.2 and Q1.3 are both semantically open, in the
sense that they're not semantically closed.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't see any particular reason to think that there is a difference
between those questions in terms of whether they are semantically
closed, or semantically open. Why do you think there is such a
difference? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
reckon that there is a difference by reflecting on the meaning of the
words, using my intuitive grasp of the meaning of the relevant terms.
</span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">My
reflection does not lead to the same conclusion. In fact, it seems
plausible to me that the cruelty vs. moral cases</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">are
equal in that regard – i. e., </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">probably
</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">either
the questions are semantically open in all cases, or in none. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">That
seems improbable. Moreover, most metaethicists would agree that the
moral questions Q1.2 and Q1.3. are</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">semantically
open. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Most
metaethicists would agree that Craig's metaethical argument fails,
for that matter, but that</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">aside,
I was</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">not taking a stance on
whether the questions are open or closed. My point is that they seem
to be either all closed, or all open. At least, by my intuitions. At
any rate, how does it matter? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">One
may raise a</span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">situationist
- or situationalist</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">-
empirically-based challenge</span></span></span> <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
virtue ethics. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">I
don't believe the situationist challenge succeeds, but I don't think
it can be defeated on </span></span><i>semantic </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">grounds
alone. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">So,
for example, one may say “I know Jack likes torturing people just
for fun, and does it every day, but is he a morally bad person?
Perhaps, humans do not have traits stable</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">enough
for there to be a morally bad - or for that matter, a morally good –
human being. Maybe Jack just happens to be in a very unusual
situation every day.” What's the </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i>semantic
</i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">problem
with that? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">One
may raise exactly the same challenge if, instead of moral goodness or
moral badness, one is talking about character traits like generosity,
courageousness, greediness, or – as in our example -, </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">cruelty</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
and the challenge looks no less persuasive. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, if your challenge shows that Q1.2 and Q1.3 are semantically open,
the parallel I just offered shows that so is Q1.1.</p>
<p><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
what about immorality of </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">actions?
</span></i></span>
</p>
<p><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
know you're focusing on moral goodness and badness for now, but for
example, </span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal">let's
consider: </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><b>S2:</b></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jack
is torturing Jake just for fun, right now. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It seems that the question “Is Jack behaving in a cruel manner?”
is semantically closed – and he is, of course -, whereas the
question “Is Jack behaving immorally?” is semantically open –
even though he is, of course, behaving immorally.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't see any good reason to think there is a difference in terms of
whether they're open or closed. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
</span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal">you have the
following problem: </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
the difference between open and closed questions is relevant and</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">problematic for the identification
of moral goodness I suggested, </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">then
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
works against DCT as well</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
and for the same reasons. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For example, let 'Jane' name the only omniscient, omnipotent,
maximally kind and loving being that exists – assuming here for the
sake of the argument there is such a being.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Then, for any 'such-and-such', the question “I know Jill resembles
Jane in such-and-such respects, but is Jill morally good?'” surely
has no better claim to semantic closure than “I know Jack enjoys
torturing people just for fun, and does it every day, but is Jack
morally good?” (or “...is Jack morally bad?”), or than “I
know Jack is torturing a person for fun right now, but is he behaving
immorally?”.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, even the question “I know Jane is maximally kind and
loving, but is Jane morally good?” has no better claim to semantic
closure than “I know Jack enjoys torturing people just for fun, and
does it every day, but is Jack morally good?” (or “...is Jack
morally bad?”), or than I know Jack is torturing a person for fun
right now, but is he behaving immorally?”.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
By “no better claim to semantic closure” I mean it's not more
probable, after reflecting on the concepts involved, that they are
semantically closed in the relevant sense.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, DCT does not have a better claim to semantically closing
questions on moral goodness than the non-theistic alternative I
suggested earlier. But again, <i>why would semantic closure matter? </i>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
God is </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">by
definition </span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
greatest conceivable being, and thus is it a </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">conceptual
truth </span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
God is morally perfect, and maximally morally good. And so, the
question: “I know Jane is God, but is Jane morally good?” is
semantically closed, and so is “Is God morally good?”</span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">As
Craig points out, asking why God is morally good is like asking why
bachelors are unmarried. <a href="#harris">[</a><a href="#harris">2]</a></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Similarly, the question: “I know Jill resembles God in the morally
relevant sense, but is Jill morally good?” is plausibly
semantically closed.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
reply fails,</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
because t</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">he
definition of 'God' as 'the greatest conceivable being' at most is
used in the context of DCT to pick the right entity – since you
can't just point your finger at God</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">-,
but it would be improper to reply to a question like “Why is the
only omnipotent, omniscient, maximally kind and loving being, morally
good?” by citing the definition of 'God' as 'the greatest
conceivable being' and saying that the only omniscient, maximally
kind and loving being, is God. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Similarly, it would be improper to claim that DCT is semantically
closing the question of moral goodness on the basis of a definition
of the word 'God'.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Regardless, in any event, I can ask you: “<i>Why </i>is moral
goodness resemblance to some aspects of the only omnipotent,
omniscient, maximally loving and kind being that exists?”
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
That is not semantically closed.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I'm not persuaded.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Why? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I just find your
arguments counterintuitive; there is probably something wrong with
them. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">You're
mistaken. But still, let us assume for the sake of the argument that
DCT semantically closes the questions about moral goodness discussed
above because God is the greatest conceivable being by definition</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
– </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">which
is definitely not the case; that would be viciously <a href="#circular">circular</a>
-, or for some other reason – it does not, as I argued above. But
let's assume it does close them.</span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Even then, questions about <i>moral obligations</i> would remain. For
example is “I know that the greatest conceivable being commands
Jill not to abort, but does Jill have a moral obligation not to
abort?” semantically closed?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Maybe
it is. Maybe not. I'm not sure, so I take no stance. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Do
you think that if it's </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">semantically
closed, then that's a problem for DCT? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If your answer is “yes”, then why do you believe that DCT is
true, given that you are unsure as to whether it's semantically
closed?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If your answer is “no”, then why would lack of semantic closure
be any problem for the foundation of moral goodness I suggested?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I'm
not sure, but something is probably wrong with your argument, even if
I can't explain the reason. It's intuitive. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">That's
most certainly unpersuasive. You really don't have a case based on
semantic closure or lack thereof, as I've been explaining. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">n</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">any
case, let me point out that </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">Craig
does not make any of those semantic arguments</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
His case is entirely based on moral ontology, not semantics. I was
just suggesting another potential objection to some of your points. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
Fair enough</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
but</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">since
you introduced those semantic objections, I explained some of the
reasons why they all fail. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
find your replies</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">unconvincing,
as usual. </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">But
okay, </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">let's
leave those semantic issues aside, and let's move on to another
problem for your suggestion: disagreement. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">People
may disagree about what qualities, dispositions, etc., go in the
'such-and-such'</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
the foundation of <a href="#moralgoodness">moral goodness</a> that
you propose. Without a paradigm of goodness, it seems there would be
no fact of the matter as to whether something is morally good, just
as without a paradigm of 'meter'</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">(whether
it's a meter bar or something else), there would be no fact of the
matter as to whether something is a meter long. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
then, moral goodness would not be objective. So, your proposed
<a href="#moralgoodness">identification</a> fails. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Objective moral goodness requires an agent who is a paradigm of moral
goodness.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't see why disagreement would have that effect, but one can just
turn the argument around: </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For example, people may even disagree about what qualities a being
ought to have in order to be the paradigm of moral goodness, or even
disagree that such a paradigm is even an epistemically live option.
In fact, some people might say that even assuming that there is an
omnipotent, omniscient, maximally kind and loving being, a moral
error theory is true, because – say – moral statements have
contradictory ontological commitments.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That's
not the same. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It's
an analogy, but how is that not relevant? You brought up
disagreement, and I matched that. But let's say that you have a
proper answer to that. One can make an even closer parallel with
cruelty, as follows: </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
People may disagree about what qualities, dispositions, etc., go in
the 'such-and-such' in your proposed ontological foundation of
cruelty.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
if the identification of moral goodness I suggested fails because
there is disagreement as you described, then so</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">does
your proposed identification of cruelty, and then we're back with the
<a href="#cgod">c-god</a> argument; i. e., objective cruelty requires
an agent who is a paradigm of cruelty, and who is essentially
maximally cruel. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
you claim there is a relevant difference, </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">what
is it? </span></i></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I'm
not persuaded. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Why
not? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It's
intuitively clear to me that your objection fails, but </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">let's
say for the sake of the argument that on non-theism, there could be
an ontological foundation of moral goodness, or moral badness, even
though I don't find that</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">plausible
at all. So, what about moral obligations? How do you resolve that
problem? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't claim to know a correct informative identification, and that is
not a problem </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">(see,
for example, </span></span></span></span><a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/morality-and-ontological-grounding-some.html"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">this
post</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>)</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
but that aside, once there are viable alternatives in the case of
moral goodness, moral duties</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">can
properly be handled similarly. I don't need to take a stance on which
alternative works or is correct, but purely for example, the
following is a potential suggestion: </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
What is for agent A to have a moral obligation to Y?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
It's for A to be in a situation such that if A failed to Y, A would
be acting immorally.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
That suggestion would reduce the issue of moral obligation to that of
immorality (or, if you like, moral wrongness).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Even
if that worked, how do you handle moral wrongness/immorality?</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Immorality
can be handled more or less like </span></span></span></span><a href="#moralgoodness"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
before: an action is immoral if and only if the agent has
such-and-such intent, beliefs, justified beliefs, etc., and one may
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">identify
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">behaving
immorally with behaving in such-and-such ways, or perhaps more
precisely making such-and-such choices, or failing to make them,
where the choices are made by some agents with such-and-such
psychological makeup, having such-and-such information, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moral wrongness is the same as immorality, so that covers it.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
This is only one potential suggestion, of course. Another one is to
handle moral obligation in terms of rules – though they would in
turn depend on the sort of mind.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
I don't know which one is correct, if either one is.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
surely each of those suggestions is at least more plausible than</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">DCT
– or some other form of theistic moral ontology. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">Of
course, I disagree about the plausibility. But that aside, here is a
problem for your</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">proposed
identification, or any other such non-theistic alternatives: it </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i>loses
normativity</i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">.
</span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">What
do you mean by that? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
you mean that I'm suggesting - though I'm not committed to the view,
as I mentioned</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">-
identifying moral wrongness</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">with
properties describable in not moral [or not clearly moral] terms,
that is true. But </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">you're
doing just that too</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
by claiming that moral goodness is resemblance of some qualities of
the only being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and maximally kind and
loving, and moral obligations are the commands of such a being. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, you too are identifying cruelty with properties describable
in terms not involving the word 'cruelty', or a synonym, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">No,
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">not
the problem. The problem is that if what you describe is</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">all
there is to moral obligations, then one may ask: “Why </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">should
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">one
not break one's moral obligations?”</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Let's
suppose Jack</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
a brutal psychopathic dictator who does not care about others or
about right and wrong, but only about his own power, pleasure, etc.
Why </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">should
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jack</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">not
torture and kill peaceful political opponents just to stay in power? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
On theism, such actions would have consequences, in the form of
afterlife punishment.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That's
not about ontological foundations anymore. Rather, you're talking
about consequences, and means-to-ends rationality given certain goals
or values. A Buddhist may</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">just
reply that the dictator would poison his karma, or something like
that. It's a matter of consequences and means-to-ends</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">rationality,
not about ontological grounding. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Maybe
a Buddhist escapes my</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">challenge,
but you're not a Buddhist, so what is your reply? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Why
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">should
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">he
not torture and kill peaceful political opponents just to stay in
power? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">There
are options: </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>1.
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
your 'should'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
the usual </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
'</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">should'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">then
torturing and killing his peaceful political opponents just to stay
in power would be immoral, and it's </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">tautological
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
that sense of 'should'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">than
one should not behave immorally.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2.
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
you're asking why it's immoral to torture and kill peaceful political
opponents just to stay in power, that is a first-order ethical
question, and not the point, but I'd say it's because it's immoral
for a human being to torture other people just to stay in power. If
you're going to keep asking </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">“</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">why?”,
I will say the chain of reasons</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">has
to end somewhere, and this seems to be like a plausible</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">place
to end it.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>3.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
your 'should'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
a means-to-ends 'should'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">(or
m-e 'should'), then whether he m-e-should torture and kill them
depends on the situation, and his goals or more generally values on
which he bases his goals (by 'values'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
mean what he values positively or negatively after reflection, which
is not necessarily the same as what he believes is morally good, bad,
etc.)</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
But I don't see any problems for the non-theist.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">There
are plenty of problems, but for example, in case </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2.,
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">you're
failing to explain why it's immoral for a human being to torture
other people just to stay in power. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Not
more than you're failing to explain why it's immoral to disobey the
commands of the only omnipotent being that exists – assuming she
exists. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
I'm </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">identifying</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
obligations with the commands of that being – who is God -, and
it's tautological that it's immoral to break one's moral obligations.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">And
I'm suggesting – though I need to make no commitments on this –
identifying immorality with behaving in such-and-such ways, or
perhaps more precisely making such-and-such choices, or failing to
make them, where the choices are made by some agents with
such-and-such psychological makeup, having such-and-such information,
etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
You don't have a better explanation. What you have is an unwarranted
claim of identification – and false, by the way -, whereas I don't
make any such claims: I just suggest options more plausible than the
account provided by DCT.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Of
course, I disagree about the truth and warrant of DCT. But that
aside, there is another problem for your alternative, namely that if
your suggestion were correct, there would be possible agents and
situations in which it would not be irrational for</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">those
agents to behave immorally, and furthermore, in some cases, it would
be irrational for</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">them
not to behave immorally. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
you're talking means-to-ends rationality, from the perspective of
some goals or values (“values” in the sense of what an agent
values, after reflection; he may positively value immoral things),
sure. But that's actually the case. There are metaphysically possible
situations like that. And if you're talking m-e-rationality from the
perspective of an agent's </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">all
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">values,
it's also probably true, though probably infrequent. In any case,
it's metaphysically possible that an agent is like that. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__44_960774861"></a><a name="__DdeLink__48_960774861"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
here is a</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">problem:
it's irrational to</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">have
values that would entail that in order to maximize the expected value
of his behavior – expected from the agent's own evaluative
perspective - , an agent means-to-ends ought to behave immorally. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
then, you're apparently not talking m-e-rationality, but some other
form of rationality. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
It's not clear what sense of 'rational' you have in mind.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Now
that I think about it, rationality in the sense in which I'm using
the word – which is not m-e rationality – would not even exist
without God, either. But such rationality does exist. So, God exists.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, there is a successful argument from objective rationality (not
m-e-rationality, and not epistemic rationality, either, though I
think there might also be a successful argument based on either one
of those) to the existence of God.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
that's your claim, I will ask you to make your case, please. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
before you go on, I'd like to point out that</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
even granting for the sake of the argument that t</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">here
is a usual</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">sense
of the term 'rational'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
matches the way you're using it now, and also granting that there is
objective rationality in that sense, I'm pretty sure I can properly
reply to your arguments from objective rationality in ways that are
relevantly similar to the ways in which I replied to the metaethical
argument above, so p</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">retty
much the same exchange will</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="background: transparent">
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">be
repeated, only talking about objective rationality instead</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="background: transparent">
</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">of
objective moral goodness or moral obligations. </span></span></span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b><span style="background: transparent">Bob:
</span></b></span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">I
don't think you can defeat the argument from objective rationality,
but that's a matter for another occasion. But there is a direct and</span></span></span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="background: transparent">
</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">decisive</span></span></span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="background: transparent">
</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">problem
for your view: It's an</span></span></span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="background: transparent">
</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">extraterrestrial</span></span></span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="background: transparent">
</span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">problem,
so to speak. Craig makes that point eloquently. </span></span></span></span></font></span><a href="#alien">[</a><a href="#alien">10]</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#000000"><span style="background: transparent">Let's
assume unguided evol</span></font><span style="background: transparent">ution
–</span> which does not follow from non-theism, but you believe in,
anyway -, and let's suppose that an alien species – say, species#1
to give it a name or identification -, evolves with very different
values, and different moral beliefs. Who would be correct? They or
we? I mean, would our moral assessments be generally objectively
true? Or would theirs be so? Or neither? And how do you know which
ones?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="aliens"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
do not see a problem. This is – roughly - how I see the matter. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Let's say that another species (say, species#2) evolves with a
different visual system. They have perceptions equal or at least
similar to our perceptions of green, blue, red, etc. (this part is
not required, but let's say so), but associated with very different
frequencies. Let's say that they have words like 'green', 'blue',
etc., that they use to talk about the world they see, much as we use
color words in English.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Humans
have color, and species#2</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">has
#2-color. Humans generally make true color statements, and those
aliens generally make true #2-color statements, etc. The truth
conditions of color statements are different from the truth
conditions of #2-color statements.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">To
be clear, it's not that our color statements have a built-in
reference to species – they do not -, but they don't have built-in
commitments</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
claims about the language and/or visual systems of other species,
either. There might be species that has</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">color
vision and color language – if the universe is </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">really</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">big
-, and species that have</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">analogues,
like #2-color vision and #2-color language. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Of course, that does not change the fact that whether you ran a red
light is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. There is a fact
of the matter as to whether the light was red or not.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Also,
Nazi uniforms were not red, and they wouldn't have been red even if
the Nazis had won the war and for some weird reason convinced
everyone given sufficient time, killings, etc., that the uniforms
were red. What happens with aliens has nothing to do with it. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#color0">[</a><a href="#color0">d]</a></span></u></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Now, to address scenarios like the one you propose, let's suppose
species#3 evolved from something like elephants or mammoths –
herbivores -, species#4 evolved from something like orcas, and
species#5 evolved from something like, say, octopuses.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
They all evolved on different planets, they're all intelligent,
capable of space travel, they have language at least as complex as
ours, etc., and let's say that they all have some language that they
use in social contexts that somewhat resemble those in which we
humans tend to use of moral terms – but not so closely; their
psychology is quite different from ours.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, for example, they can all feel emotions like guilt, remorse,
outrage, etc. - perhaps not identical to human emotions, but similar;
this issue is not crucial -, and they deploy their moral-like
language in contexts and situations normally associated with such
feelings - that's a resemblance -, and their judgments are usually
action-guiding – like our moral judgments -, but on the other hand,
their social structures are indeed quite alien.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In the case of species#5, for instance, we may stipulate they were
solitary beings even when they had a capacity for making tools to
resolve problems above the level of chimpanzees, and only after that
they gradually became more social, etc. - just to give an impression
of bigger differences, which one might simply stipulate and explain
in greater detail if needed.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Even if that happens, I see no problem for moral objectivity, in the
sense in which Craig is using 'objective', according to his own
explanation of what he means by that.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, for example, the following is also compatible with objectivity:
#5-moral goodness, #4-moral goodness, #3-moral goodness and moral
goodness are all different properties, as character traits, despite a
significant overlap. Similarly, #5-goodness, #4-goodness, #3-goodness
and goodness are different properties as properties of situations,
results, etc. (e. g., “a good situation”).
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
I don't see any difficulty here.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
What about moral obligations?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
That is an interesting case. I offer a few suggestions:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>1</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
Individuals of species#k have k-moral obligations, rather than moral
obligations, and their k-moral sense is generally reliable at
detecting their k-moral obligations.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">They
all have moral obligations, but they're very different. For example,
sometimes humans have a moral obligation to prevent a very bad
result, but #4 beings have a moral obligation to prevent a very
#</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">4-bad</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">result,
and #4-badness is not the same as badness.</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#consequentialism">[</a><a href="#consequentialism">e]</a></span></u></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>3.
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Individuals
of species#k have k-moral obligations, and their k-moral sense is
generally reliable at detecting their k-moral obligations. In the
case of at least some species, they also have moral obligations, but
they neither nor care about that. They care about k-morality, not
about morality.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
As in the color case, there seems to be no problem here.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">A
problem is that most people would reckon that aliens capable of
language as complex as ours, science, etc.,</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
humans would not be talking past each other. I mean, if the aliens
feel something similar to</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
– </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">or
the same as - guilt, remorse, outrage, etc., and have concepts they
use in social contexts usually associated with those feelings, make
judgments in those contexts that are usually action-guiding, etc.,
then they have morality, not some alien morality, and there could be
disagreement in a moral debate between those aliens and some humans,
rather than miscommunication. That's what happens – for example –
in most fictions involving aliens: they have morality, not some alien
morality. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Fictional
aliens are generally no good guide to what real aliens would be like,
and meaning depends on usage. So, the meaning of the alien terms
depend on how they use them. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">T</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">he
meaning of the aliens terms depends on their usage, but their usage
in contexts associated with guilt, remorse, outrage, etc. -or
something very similar, but let's say the same, since you're not
making a metaethical distinction based on that -, and the usual
action-guiding property of their judgments shows that they're using
moral language. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't agree that that shows that they're using moral language. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">For example, <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">if
their judgments are – after ideal reflection – associated with
properties describable without such language or ours (e. g.,
dispositions to be kind in such-and-such situations, etc.), and our
judgments are associated with some </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">other
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">properties
after similar reflection, then they're not using moral language, and
the truth conditions of their alien-moral language are different from
the truth-conditions of our moral language. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
fact, this is so regardless of whether moral goodness is </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">identified
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">with
having some dispositions, etc., or only supervenes on them – and
the same for #3-moral goodness, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
To be clear, the 'ideal reflection' condition is an example, but I
don't need to take a stance on how to best analyze the truth
conditions of their language and ours. Perhaps, it's better to
analyze that in terms of property-tracking, and in that case, if the
aliens are tracking different properties (describable without their
moral-like terms, etc.) from us, then they don't have moral but
alien-moral language, etc. Or some other, similar variant. I see see
no problem.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
point is that in cases like that, their usage of language does not
show that they have moral language and/or</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
they could communicate with us successfully – rather than talk past
each other. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">On
the contrary, if we stipulate that even upon ideal reflection, the</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">aliens
in question</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
humans</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">end
up with different judgments, and/or that the aliens</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">track
properties associated with their moral-like language that are
different from the properties (describable in non-moral language) we
track and are associated with our moral language, or more generally
that the association between their moral-like language and some
properties (describable in non-moral and</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">non-moral-like
terms) is different from the association between our moral language
and some properties (describable in non-moral terms) in a way akin to
the way in which alien-color language and color language differ with
respect to the properties of light</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">they're
associated with, I reckon that the aliens do </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">have
moral language, but moral-like language, with different truth
conditions, etc., and if they were to talk to humans without
realizing that, aliens and humans would be talking past each other. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">There
are plenty of atheist philosophers who would disagree with that. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__52_1676763031"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">True,
but for that matter, there are theist philosophers who disagree with
DCT, or even reject Craig's metaethical argument. Maybe that is less
frequent among theists, but in any case, those are not central issues
in our debate. If we're going to rely on poll numbers, I may just
point out that most metaethicists reject the metaethical argument,
and in fact do not believe that God exists, or that most
metaphysicians hold the view that God does not exist. </span></span></span></span><a href="#survey"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[11]</span></u></span></span></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob:</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">Okay,
let's leave polls aside. It seems clear that any sufficiently
intelligent aliens and humans would not be talking past each other,
in situations such as the ones described above</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">if
they have the mental traits in question. As I said, </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">if
the aliens feel guilt, remorse, outrage, etc., and have concepts they
use in social contexts usually associated with those feelings, make
judgments in those contexts that are usually action-guiding, etc.,
then they have morality, not some alien morality, and there could be
disagreement in a moral debate between those aliens and some humans,
rather than miscommunication. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Actually,
I reckon that if, say, #4 </span></span></span></span><a href="#aliens"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">aliens</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
and humans were to meet, they </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">would</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">be
talking past each other if they tried to debate without realizing
that moral goodness and #4-moral goodness are different properties;
“Agent A is #4-morally good” and “Agent A is morally good”
have different truth conditions, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
disagree. After reflection on the relevant concepts, I can tell that
you're mistaken. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">After
reflection on the relevant concepts, I can tell that I'm not mistaken
– you are. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">There
is a Moral Twin Earth objection I'd like to make, but I'll leave it
for later; first, I would like to raise a number of other issues. For
example, you can't properly set up scenarios like</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
and say that there would be objective #3-moral goodness, etc.,
because even if</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">there
were moral goodness, #4-moral goodness, #5-moral goodness, etc., and
those were all different properties, then moral goodness </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">would
not be objective at </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">all,
and neither would any of the others – or at most, one of them would
be objective, but there would be no particular reason to believe
moral goodness would be the one. Mirroring Craig's point </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#alien">[</a><a href="#alien">10]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
we can tell that human morality would have no better claim to be
objective than #3-morality, #4-morality, #5-morality, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
reckon that all of them would</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">be
objective – at least, that would be the proper assessment based on
the information provided by the scenarios. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, of course none of them would have a better claim to be objective
than any of the others. In fact, just as color and #2-color can both
be objective, morality, #3-morality, etc., can all be objective. I
reckon they would all be so.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
that is not objectivity</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
the relevant sense of the word 'objective'. The relevant sense is the
sense in which Craig uses the word 'objective' in the metaethical
argument. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Actually,
#3-morality, etc., could be objective in that relevant sense. There
is an objective fact of the matter as to whether the Holocaust was
immoral (it was), whether it was a bad thing (it was), and so on.
Those are matters of fact, not matters of opinion. Assuming the alien
scenarios, all of that remains unchanged. The same goes for #3-moral
goodness: there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether some
agent is #3-morally good, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">There
are non-theist philosophers, like Sharon Street, who would not
classify anything like what you describe as moral realism. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#darwin">[1</a><a href="#darwin">2</a><a href="#darwin">]</a></span></u></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">True,
that's not what she would call “uncompromising normative realism”.
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#darwin">[1</a><a href="#darwin">2</a></span></u></span></span></span><a href="#darwin"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
Perhaps – </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">though
this is not entirely clear to me -, DCT would not qualify, either! </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, what I described above would be realism under other
philosophical conceptions of the expression 'moral realism'. Purely
for example, it qualifies under </span></span></span></span>Geoff
Sayre-McCord's conception<a href="#McCord"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[13</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#McCord">]</a>,</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">explained</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
</span></span></span></span><a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/moral-realism/"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">the
SEP entry on moral realism.</span></u></span></span></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
However, we're not talking about any of those definitions. What
matters in this context is whether objective moral values and duties
would exist, in the relevant sense of objectivity, which is the one
used in Craig's metaethical argument. And they would – and they do
-, for the reasons I've been giving. So, Craig is mistaken. The alien
objection simply misses the mark entirely.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It's
Craig's argument, and he knows what he means. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Actually,
as I explained earlier, Craig is</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#objective9">conf</a><a href="#objective9">using</a></span></u></span></span></span><a href="#objective9"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#objective9">two
very different matters</a>, so that might explain his mistake on the
alien issue, but</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
alien scenario misses the point entirely, as explained. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Incidentally, in
addition to the color example<a href="#color"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[14]</span></span></span></span></a>,
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Craig
also said that moral disagreement and moral error</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">presuppose
the objectivity of moral values and duties. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#objective1">[</a><a href="#objective1">6]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
it is apparent that if species#3 has #3-morality, species#4 has
#4-morality, etc., humans would still be able to disagree – with
other humans, at the very least</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#aliendisagreement">[</a><a href="#aliendisagreement">f</a><a href="#aliendisagreement">]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">-
on whether, say, the 9-11 attacks were immoral. And humans can still
make errors: for example, some people believe those attacks</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">were
not immoral. All of that remains and would remain even if zillions of
different alien species</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">had</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">zillions
of different alien moralities. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't agree with that. The fact is that the extraterrestrial examples
show very well that, without God – or at least, assuming unguided
evolution -, morality would not be objective, moral goodness,
obligations, etc., would not be objective, etc., in the sense of
'objective' relevant in the second premise of the metaethical
argument. Perhaps, Craig did not explain clearly what he meant by
'objective', but at least that much is clear. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">No,
it's not just that he was unclear – he was unclear, but it's not
just that.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Craig
gave</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
examples of green and red as examples of objectivity even when
illustrating what he meant by 'objective', and also when defending
the objectivity or moral values and duties</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#color">[1</a><a href="#color">4</a><a href="#color">]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
highlighted the</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
clear distinction between matters of fact and matters of opinion –
and made it clear that that was the relevant distinction -, explained
the difference in terms of not depending on what a person believes,
etc. Alien moralities may qualify as objective under that conception
of objectivity. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">Craig
also made claims </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">about
disagreement and error, etc. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#objective1">[</a><a href="#objective1">6]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
and clearly there can be moral disagreement between humans, etc.,
regardless of what the aliens do, what judgments they make, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">The fact is that the
alien scenarios pose no threat whatsoever to objectivity, in the
sense of 'objective' that is relevant in the context of Craig's
metaethical argument.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, if that alien example were really an objection to moral
objectivity in that context, you might as well argue:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P1.4:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
unguided evolution happened, objective color would</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">not
exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P2.4:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Objective
color does exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>C:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Unguided
evolution did not happen. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="exobiology"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Of
course, claiming that color is objective and then that if intelligent
aliens (i. e., with language, science, etc.) evolved differently and
had a different visual system (in the relevant sense), etc., there
would be no objective color, would commit you to an </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">unwarranted
exobiology claim, </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">namely
that there are no such aliens. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Then again, you're
already making an implicit – and also unwarranted - exobiology
claim: <i>you're apparently implying that one of the following is
true: </i>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>1</b>. There are no aliens of the relevant kind (i. e., smart,
capable of talk, with complex language, with moral-like language,
etc.).
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>2.</b>
There are aliens like that, but those aliens have a moral sense, like
ours (not a #3-moral sense), etc., and make moral assessments
generally matching ours, or else they are very confused about
morality.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Actually,
there are some non-theists</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">who
are also committed to the view that either </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>1.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">or
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">above
is true. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">True,
and others</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">are
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">not.
But that's not the</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="background: transparent">
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">point.
</span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b><span style="background: transparent">Bob</span></b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">:
Craig said that in order to be objective in the relevant sense, moral
values and duties have to be valid and binding independently of human
opinion. </span></span></span></span></span><a href="#objective7">[</a><a href="#objective7">9]</a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">
You're failing to factor that in. </span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">For
example, as Craig himself explains, if values were the product of
evolution, they would not be valid and binding without previous
agreement. But if the </span></span></span></span></span><a href="#aliens">alien</a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">
scenarios were true and there were moral values, then those values
would be the product of evolution, and hence would not be objective. </span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">What
do you mean that they would not be binding without agreement? <br/>
Of
course, the Holocaust would still be immoral regardless of agreement.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
that aside, Craig defined 'objective' in general. He did not suggest</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
'objective' has a meaning in the context of morality, another one in
the context of color, and so on. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__55_665938732"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
fact, one may properly</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">reckon
based on Craig's points on the matter and context</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#objective2">[</a><a href="#objective2">8]</a><a href="#objective7">[</a><a href="#objective7">9]</a><a href="#gay">[1</a><a href="#gay">5</a><a href="#gay">]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
a matter is objective if and only if it's a matter of fact, not a
matter of opinion. A property P is objective if and only if whether
some object O</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">instantiates
P is a matter of fact, i. e., an objective matter. And objective P
actually exists if P is an objective property and is actually
instantiated. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
For example, objective moral goodness actually exists just in case
moral goodness is an objective property, and is actually
instantiated.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
fact, here one may use one of Craig's examples again. He gives that
example in order to illustrate what it means to say that </span></span></span></span>[6],
and goes on to explain that to say that the Holocaust was objectively
wrong is to say that it was morally wrong independently of factors
such as who won World War Two, whether the Nazis who carried out the
Holocaust believed it was wrong, whether the Nazis managed to change
the world so that everyone would believe that the Holocaust was right
and good, and so on. But of course, all of the above – about the
Holocaust – seems clearly compatible with there being aliens with
some analogue to morality – some alien morality if you like -, and
there being objective #3-moral goodness, #4-moral goodness, and so
on. If you claim it's not compatible, then why is that not so?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">But
even if #3-moral goodness, etc., were compatible with the statements
about the Holocaust, etc., and even if agreement between humans were
not required, moral values and duties would not be binding for the
aliens, and so they would not be objective. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Whatever
“valid and binding” means in this context, if #3-moral goodness,
etc., are compatible with the statements about the Holocaust, etc.,
which is</span> <i><span style="font-weight: normal">the very same
example Craig uses in order to explain what 'objectively wrong' means
in this context</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
then the alien scenarios pose no threat to objective moral values or
duties. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Now,
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><b>if
</b></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Craig's
“valid and binding” condition demands that in order for moral
goodness, wrongness, etc., to be objective, there is no #3-goodness,
#4-goodness, etc. - all different properties -, then he's just using
a specific concept of 'objectivity' in the moral case that is
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">different
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">from
the colloquial sense of 'objective' that distinguishes matters of
fact from matters of opinion, and which is the sense in which color
is objective. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
But <i>if </i>Craig is using the word 'objective' in this alternative
sense, then he made serious mistakes and confused matters by using
the color example to illustrate what he means by 'objective', and
also by using the Holocaust example to illustrate the difference, and
also by pointing to the difference between matters of fact and
matters of opinion, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In short, <i>if</i> Craig is using the word 'objective' in a sense
that would make objective moral values and/or duties incompatible
with there being alien moralities in the way you claim, then he made
serious mistakes when explaining what 'objective' means in this
context. Additionally, in that case, he also made obviously false
claims by saying that moral error, disagreement, etc. presuppose
objectivity, since – very obviously – if there were #3-moral
goodness, etc., we can still disagree about whether some person or
behavior is morally good, make mistakes about whether some behavior
was morally wrong, etc., regardless of what any aliens might do,
believe, feel, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
The concept of 'objective' is the same, but you seem to be missing
one requirement for objectivity of a property – namely, that the
property be mind-independent. In your alien scenarios, those
properties – even if they existed – would be mind-dependent. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, there would be no objective moral goodness.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">You're
missing the point here. The alien scenarios – and the existence of
#3-moral goodness, etc. - appear clearly compatible with all of the
statements about the Holocaust. Moreover, in that case, moral matters
would still be matters of fact, not matters of opinion. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">So, if you claim
that the existence of #4-moral goodness, #3-moral goodness, etc. -
all different properties -, are incompatible with objective moral
values and duties in the sense in which the word 'objective' is used
in the metaethical argument, then you ought to show why that is so.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">As
I already explained, you're missing the mind-independence condition. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Craig
did </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">include
that condition in his explanation of what it means to be objective,
in the defense of his metaethical argument. Granted, he identified
objectivity with mind-independence when replying to</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">a
question, but </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
I already explained, Craig is</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#objective9">confusing
two </a><a href="#objective9">very different </a><a href="#objective9">matters</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">when
he talks about mind-independence. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't find your arguments persuasive, as usual. But in any case, the
mind-independence condition is crucial. If there were #3-moral
goodness, #4-moral goodness, etc., and moral goodness, then moral
goodness would not be objective. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Given
your answers, I guess no matter how many times I showed that moral
goodness would still meet Craig's conditions, you would not be
persuaded. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
you're saying that if there were #3-moral goodness, etc., then</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness would be mind-dependent. Why? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Because
it would somehow be generated by human minds, or the minds of other
similar beings. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">What
do you mean by that? Why would it be any more mind-dependent than,
say, mental</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">illness? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Without
God, there would be no objective illness, either, and that includes
mental illness. That's because without a designer, there is no proper
function, and hence no improper function. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">You're
mistaken, but that's a matter for another debate. Let's leave aside
mental illness, and focus specifically on obsessive-compulsive
disorder (OCD)? (or more precisely, the property of having OCD, or
OCD-ness). That's objective, right? But how is OCD</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">not
generated by a human mind? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Without
God, there would be no objective illness. Objective
obsessive-compulsive disorder – the condition - could exist without
God, but it would not be a </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">disorder</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
so it would be a mistake to call it that. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
is not true, but in any case, whatever one calls it, the point is
that OCD-ness would be</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">objective
without God too, in the relevant sense of 'objective'. But the
condition of objectivity you give now – i. e., not being generated
by a mind - would seem to render ODC-ness not objective. Hence, the
condition 'not being generated by a mind'</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
not a condition for objectivity, in the relevant sense of
'objective'. Craig is mistaken about that, and so are you. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't think Craig is mistaken. And I'm not mistaken. But that aside,
why do you think that there is objective OCD-ness? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Some
people have OCD, and it's a matter of fact whether a person has it –
not a matter of opinion. What does that have to do with whether OCD
is generated by a mind? Why do you think there is objective moral
goodness, objective immorality, etc.? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">It's
intuitively clear. For example, let's consider one of Craig's
examples: <a href="#racism">[1</a><a href="#racism">6</a><a href="#racism">]</a></span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">racism. Don't you agree racism
really is immoral? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Yes,
racism really is immoral, and some people really have OCD, and most
stop traffic lights are really red, and so on, in the usual,
colloquial sense of the word 'really', which is the one Craig is
using. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
if moral goodness even existed without God and if the alien scenarios
you suggest were true, moral goodness</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">would
somehow be generated by human minds, or the minds of other similar
beings – if there were some other aliens, similar enough to humans
to have morality rather than #5-morality, etc. -, and so it would not
be an objective property, because it would not meet the
mind-independence requirement. Also, moral wrongness would not be
objective. And so on. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
again, how would</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness, or moral wrongness, be any more </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">“</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">generated
by a mind” than, say, OCD-ness? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
How is moral goodness any different from OCD-ness, with respect to
objectivity, under the assumption that some of the alien scenarios I
sketched obtains? (i. e., that there are such aliens, with such
faculties, and some properties like #5-goodness, etc.).
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">It's
difficult to say where the difference lies, but I think it's clear
that you misunderstand Craig. In the way he uses 'mind-dependence',
clearly, OCD-ness would not be generated by a mind, so it would be
mind-independent. But #5-moral goodness, if it existed, would be
mind-dependent. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><i><span style="font-weight: normal">Why?</span></i>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">It's
intuitively clear, but it is difficult to explain why. One potential
distinction is as follows: </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">If,
say, #3-aliens came to Earth – and they had enough tech, etc. -,
they would be able to recognize </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">obsessive-compulsive
disorder</span></span></span></span> <span style="font-weight: normal">by
observing and studying humans, but they would be unable to recognize
moral goodness if they only have a sense that recognizes #3-moral
goodness, unless they relied</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">on
human input – that is, unless they relied on the minds of humans to
make moral assessments. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-weight: normal">While that is an </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">epistemic</span></i>
<span style="font-weight: normal">difference, it plausibly results</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">from the </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">ontological</span></i>
<span style="font-weight: normal">difference between OCD-ness</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">,</span></span>
– <span style="font-weight: normal">which would still be objective
– and moral goodness – which is objective, but would be
subjective if there were #3-moral goodness, #4-moral goodness, etc.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice:</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">Why do you think
#3-aliens would be able to recognize OCD, but not moral goodness,
without input from humans? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">People with OCD behave
differently from people without OCD. Sufficiently advanced aliens
would be able to tell the difference. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Morally good people
behave differently from people who are not morally good. Sufficiently
advanced aliens would be able to tell the difference. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">What about a bad person
who behaves like a good person because it's in his self-interest? The
aliens would not be able to observe a difference. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">But in that case, the
aliens</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">would not be able to
observe a</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">difference relying
on human input, either. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob:</b> Okay, but w<span style="font-weight: normal">hat if the
behavioral differences are tiny, but a human can still detect them? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Then a sufficiently
advanced alien can detect</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">them
too.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Alright, but even if
#3-aliens were able to observe differences in behavior between good
and not good humans, they would not have a classification matching
those differences, while they would probably have a classification
based on whether a human does not have or has OCD, among many other
mental conditions. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In other words, the aliens would still need to rely on human input to
see any relevance in the specific differences between morally good
and not good humans. Not so for OCD.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I don't see why that
would be so. Why do you think that they would find the differences
between humans with OCD and humans without OCD salient enough to make
a classification based on it – or make it part of a broader
classification considering many conditions -, but not the differences
between morally good and morally not good people? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">OCD is easier to detect</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">than moral goodness or moral
badness, at least for a being who has</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">a
#3-moral sense that detects #3-moral goodness and #3-moral badness,
but not moral goodness or moral badness. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In fact, without a moral sense, #3 aliens would have no indication
whatsoever that there is some significant classification between
morally good and morally not good people, without asking humans to
make assessments.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Actually, if the
aliens observed human behavior, they may find the differences between
morally good and not good people salient enough to warrant a
classification, for all we know. But I still don't see how that has
anything to do with objectivity. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let's say, for example, #3-aliens studying the Earth do not have a
word for “fish”, and have no classification between fish and
non-fish. Would that mean that there is no objective fishness?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">The aliens could
observe fish, and the differences between fish and non fish. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice:</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">They could observe
morally good and morally not good humans, and the differences between
their behavior. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">As I already said,
without human input they would not be able to recognize those
specific differences (i. e., between morally good and morally bad
people). Instead, the aliens would have a number of psychological
criteria to classify humans, and some of the differences in behavior
between morally good and morally not good people would be captured by
some of those criteria, others by some other criteria, and so on, but
there would be no specific classification matching the differences
between morally good or not good humans. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Let's assume so –
though I don't know about that -, my point is: the same could happen
in the case of, say, fish. Let's stipulate that it actually happens;
i. e., #3-aliens have no classification between fish and non-fish,
and then, without human input, they wouldn't even think of that
category. Would that suggest fishness is subjective? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If not, then I submit that probable alien classificatory schemes are
not relevant when it comes to ascertaining whether a property is
objective.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, you haven't even given any particularly good reason to
think they would care to include OCD-ness in a classification.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I'm not convinced by
your arguments, as usual. But let's leave that aside. Even if the
aliens were able to recognize moral goodness by observing humans,
they wouldn't value it positively. They would value #3-moral goodness
positively, but not moral goodness. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">But that's not
related to the issue of objectivity. For that matter, a human
psychopath may well not value moral goodness positively. And the
question of whether #3-aliens would value moral goodness positively
is not even related to the question of whether moral goodness is an
objective property. Rather, it's a question </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">about
alien psychology –</span></i> <span style="font-weight: normal">i.
e., about the psychology of some hypothetical aliens -, unrelated to
the question</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">of the
objectivity of moral goodness. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
problem is that in the alien scenarios you propose, the </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">value
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">would
be mind-dependent, and so objective moral values would not exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It's
not clear to me what you mean by that. But agents value things (other
agents, properties, etc.). Psychopaths do not value moral goodness
positively for its own sake – i. e., as an end -, thought they
might sometimes value it positively as a means to an end. But that
does not preclude the objectivity of moral goodness. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Similarly, #3 aliens in the scenarios I described do not value moral
goodness positively for its own sake – though they do value
#3-moral goodness positively for its own sake -, but that does not
preclude the objectivity of moral goodness.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
the psychopath is making a mistake, failing to see that moral
goodness is intrinsically valuable – i. e., valuable for its own
sake. On the other hand, you're not suggesting the aliens are making
any mistakes. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">X
is intrinsically [morally] valuable if and only if X is </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">positively
morally valued for its own sake, </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">–
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">i.
e., it's a</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">good
thing in and of itself, regardless of consequences. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Clearly – maybe even tautologically -, moral goodness as a
character trait is positively morally valued, and even regardless of
results – so, for its own sake, or intrinsically.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In the alien scenarios, some things, traits, results, etc., are
intrinsically morally valuable, whereas others are intrinsically
#3-morally valuable, etc., with some overlap.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
There needs to be no mistake on the part of the psychopath, by the
way, who may recognize that some things are intrinsically morally
valuable – i. e., morally good in and of itself. He just wouldn't
care about that, for its own sake, and he may well not be incurring
m-e-irrationality, given that his own evaluative function does not
value positively and for its own sake what is morally valuable for
its own sake.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
something is intrinsically morally valuable, it can't be that it's
not intrinsically #3-morally valuable. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
thought we were talking about </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">objective</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
values, not </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">intrinsic
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">value,
but never mind that. Why can't there be intrinsic moral value,
intrinsic #3-moral value, etc., in the sense of 'intrinsic'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
is relevant in colloquial moral discourse – if any? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It's
clear that there would be no intrinsic moral value. I can assess that
by my intuitive grasp of</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
relevant terms and moral intuitions in general. </span></span></span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">After
reflection, and going by my intuitive grasp of the relevant terms and
moral intuitions in general, I disagree. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Let
me try a different approach, then. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><a name="Fscenario"></a>
Let's consider a hypothetical scenario (the F-scenario): in a distant
future, some evil human scientists decide to make a small community
of AI, who will be vastly intelligent, but will not care about moral
goodness – either as a character trait (as in 'a good person'), or
as a property of outcomes, situations, etc. (as in 'a good result') -
for its own sake.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In fact, the scientists come up with a well-defined function F that
they just made up. F assigns a certain value to different situations,
outcomes, objects, etc. - I'll use “things” as a generic term to
name situations, outcomes, objects, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
The F-value of a thing may be positive, negative, or zero. For
example, it might be that F(torture for fun in such-and-such
context)=+295; F(helping the needy in such-and-such situations)=-9283
F(God)=(-99999!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Granted, that's not precise, that
wouldn't work as a definition of F, etc., but you get the picture.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Also, in some cases, some things have greater or lower F-value
depending on their expected consequences, whereas in some cases, they
have a certain F-value regardless of consequences.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, the community of AI, whose members are called “functonians”,
is successfully built. We may assume that in terms of m-e
intelligence, language skills, math, etc., functonians vastly surpass
even the most intelligent humans, and that functonians care about
F-value, they can have negative feelings if they bring about F-bad
results, etc. (we may assume some sort of F-consequentialism is
programmed, to simplify, but if needed, we may add another function
to play a role akin to moral obligations, etc.)
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Going by your previous assessments, it would seem that you're
committed to the conclusion that in that scenario, F-morality is
objective, some things are objectively and intrinsically
F-morally-valuable, and so on, despite the fact that the function F
was just made up by those evil scientists, who engineered the
functonians.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Actually,
I don't think 'F-morally'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">would
be a proper term. I used '</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">#3-moral',
'#4-moral', etc., because of the similarly between those things</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
morality, but you seem to be setting up F-ing to be a bit too</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">different.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That's
just an irrelevant terminological issue, but let's leave the word
'moral'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">out
of it if you like. The key point is that you seem to be committed to
the conclusion that in the </span></span></span></span><a href="#Fscenario"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">F-scenario</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
there is objective F-goodness, F-badness, objectively and
intrinsically F-good things, and so on, and that the functonians –
if programmed without errors, at least – would not be mistaken in
their evaluations, despite the fact that F was constructed
arbitrarily. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
seems to be correct, but I don't see why it's key. There is no
problem. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Of
course there is a problem! </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">And
it's key because the </span></span></span></span><a href="#Fscenario"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">F-scenario</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
shows that clearly, something like that</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">would
be neither objective nor intrinsic, and in fact if the </span></span></span></span><a href="#Fscenario"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">F-scenario</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
were possible and happened, either the functonians would be massively
mistaken about the objective value of things, or else we would be, or
both, or there would be no objective value whatsoever. It's false</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
some things would be objectively and/or</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">intrinsically
good, but objectively and intrinsically F-bad, for example. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">You
are mistaken. There would be no mistake. Functonians would be talking
about F-goodness, we would be talking about moral goodness, moral
obligation, etc. Assuming the scenario, since some things are F-good,
and there is a fact of the matter as to whether something is F-good,
then clearly, there is objective F-goodness. And since some things
have positive F-value regardless of their consequences, they are
intrinsically F-valuable (i. e., for their own sake, not due to their
consequences, or expected consequences, etc.). </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
there is a sense in which F-value can't be intrinsic: intrinsic value
has to be something ontologically different from other stuff, in some
metaphysically important sense. In these scenarios, we can say things
are 'F-valuable'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
only </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
the sense that the function assigns them a positive value. And
similarly, if God did not exist, then nothing would be intrinsically
morally valuable in the ontologically important sense I have in mind.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
concept of intrinsicality</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">you
have in mind in this objection </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">is
not a sense relevant in colloquial moral talk; it's not part of our
moral language</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
even if some mistaken philosophical theories consider that there is
such sort of thing. That's because the only relevant sense is that
some things are good in and of themselves, regardless of
consequences, as I reckon by conceptual analysis and moral
intuitions. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">You're
mistaken. There is a sense of intrinsic value that is metaphysically
important, and relevant in our moral talk, and is not the sense you
have in mind, namely the sense that some things are good regardless
of consequences. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Why
do you think so? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
reckon that's the case by means of conceptual analysis and moral
intuitions. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
reckon that's not the case by means of conceptual analysis and moral
intuitions. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Some</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">philosophers
would agree with me on this. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Some
philosophers would disagree with you on this. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Okay,
I guess we'll have to disagree on this matter. By the way, our moral
judgments do not have a built-in reference to species. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">True,
but I'm not saying they do. Rather, I'm saying that our moral
judgments do not have a built-in claim about different aliens, AI,
etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
For example, analogously, our color terms do not say anything about
whether aliens have color, #2-color, etc. There might be non-human
very intelligent species (if the universe is large enough) with color
vision (not #2-color, etc.), and/or there might be species with
#2-color, etc. Our color language is neutral on this matter.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Our
moral language seems neutral too, even if most people happen to</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">believe
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
aliens who can talk, etc. - if they exist - have morality rather than
#3-morality, etc. - just as most people believe that time is
absolute, but that condition is not built-in the meaning of our
temporal language, and temporal relativity does not lead us to an
error theory of talk about time. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, the point stands: functonians would be talking about F-goodness,
not moral goodness; judgments of F-goodness would have truth
conditions very different from judgments of moral goodness, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">You're
correct about color language and about temporal language, but
mistaken about moral language. Moral language has ontological
commitments that make objective moral values and/or duties and/or
intrinsic moral goodness, etc., incompatible with the alien, AI,
etc., scenarios we're discussing. I can tell that by reflecting on
them, intuitively. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">After
reflection, I disagree about that sort of ontological commitment. My
intuitions say otherwise. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I
see. So, let me</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">raise
another issue: </span><b>l</b><span style="font-weight: normal">et's
leave intrinsicality aside, and go back to the matter of objectivity.
F-goodness would not be objective. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Yes,
it would be. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">No,
it would</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">not.
In fact, i</span></span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal">f
F-goodness were objective, it would be independent of what everyone
believes. But surely, in the <a href="#Fscenario">F-scenario</a>,
F-goodness is not independent in that manner. It depends on the
beliefs of the humans who programmed the functonians and made up the
function F. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, F-goodness is subjective. And similarly, in the alien scenarios,
#3-moral goodness, and even moral goodness is subjective.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">No,
F-goodness does not depend on belief. The evil scientists just made
up the function, but which value the function assigns to a thing is
an objective matter. Of course, after programming the AI, any of the
scientists can make a mistake about which value the function assigns
to some thing, just as a person</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">can
make up an evaluative function, and later miscalculate the value that
the function she came up with assigns to an object. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">But
if the evil scientists changed the function, they would change
F-goodness. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">One
might say that they would be making beings that care about some other
thing, say F2-goodness. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">That's
an irrelevant terminological issue. Regardless of whether we say they
changed F, or they came up with a new F2, the point is that</span>
<i><span style="font-weight: normal">F-goodness is not objective
because</span></i> <i><span style="font-weight: normal">those evil
scientists just made it up!</span></i></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">You're
mistaken about objectivity, but perhaps the following color scenario
will convince you: </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let's say that in the future, some aliens – for whatever reason –
decide to genetically modify some humans, and give them a different
visual system, which keeps the usual human color perceptions, but
associated with very different wavelengths – which are chosen by
alien engineers.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Granted, there are limits to what the alien engineers can do when
modifying human color vision, at least if one stipulates that there
are constrained by nomological possibility, but for that matter,
nomological possibility would also constrain the F function, since
there are different possible functions that would require
increasingly complex AI to compute them, and the aliens can't make
arbitrarily complex computers due to a lack of sufficient energy.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Also, granted, the aliens might be more limited when it comes to the
array of options they have when modifying human vision than in the AI
case, but that is only a side issue. Moreover, for that matter, the
aliens might make other intelligent beings that are not genetically
modified humans, and get very creative when it comes to their visual
system, and to their color analogues. Purely for example, even a
computer with a camera and adequate software can paint any part of a
video any color one wants – within a vast range -, or even
associate any wavelengths a camera can detect with any color on a
screen. That indicates that beings with vastly different color-like
systems are nomologically possible – one just needs an adequately
sensitive eye and a brain to interpret the input.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, the point is, the aliens genetically modify those humans, and
then leave GM humans on a distant planet, also suitably modified to
support human life.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">How
do the aliens</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">transport the
GM humans so far away? The distances are huge, and FTL travel is very
probably not nomologically possible. Moreover, how do they find a
planet that can support human life? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">It
doesn't matter how they do any of that. It's an irrelevant feature of
the scenario. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
for example, one may stipulate that the aliens modify a planet to
make it capable of sustaining human and</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">GM
human life. That might take them millions of years, but that's not
relevant. The aliens have plenty of time. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Also, the aliens might take frozen embryos on a spaceship, or
whatever. None of that is important.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
By the way, we're assessing the concept of objectivity, so it
wouldn't even be required to restrict ourselves to nomologically
possible scenarios.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Okay,
so let's say the aliens make those GM humans, and leave some of them
on a distant planet. Then what happens? What's your point? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">After
hundreds of years living there, those humans have a language
including GM-color terms. Let's also</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">stipulate
that there was no significant evolution of their GM-color vision in
those hundreds of years since they were left on the planet. If a
longer period is required for them to develop that language, we may
stipulate the aliens stealthily make sure the GM-color vision is not
significantly altered while language is developed, etc., using
genetic engineering, culling or whatever. The specifics are not
relevant. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
The point is that in the scenario, those GM-humans can and usually do
make true GM-color judgments. And whether something is, say,
GM-green, is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">So, just as
greenness is objective, so is GM-greenness, <i>despite the fact that
the aliens just invented GM-color vision. </i>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, if you accept the objectivity of greenness and of GM-greenness,
why do you not accept that F-goodness would be objective as well?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I'm certain F-goodness
could not be objective in the relevant sense, and while I'm not
entirely sure, it seems to me you just gave a pretty good argument
against the objectivity of color. But who cares about color? We care
about morality. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">No, that's the wrong
conclusion. It's a matter of fact whether, say, the traffic light was
green, and it's a matter of fact whether some fruit on the distant
planet is GM-green, or green – in the scenario. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
And there is of course the possibility of error in the case of color,
and of GM-color. And two GM-humans can disagree about whether the
fruit was in fact GM-green.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Why would they
disagree? Didn't they see the fruit? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Maybe one of them
didn't look carefully enough, or had a visual</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">illness,
etc. It's not important. For example, sometimes human eyewitnesses in
a court case give conflicting reports about the color of an object.
So, some humans</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">make</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">color mistakes. In fact, color
mistakes are not even so unusual - though how unusual they are is a
side issue, not relevant to the matters at hand. Similarly, in the GM
scenario, GM-humans can make</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">GM-color
mistakes. And there is color disagreement, and similarly, in the GM
scenario, there can be</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">GM-color
disagreement. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But more importantly, there is a fact of the matter as to whether
something is GM-green, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Why does that show that
GM-color is objective?</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Well, </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">if</span></i>
<span style="font-weight: normal">you're suggesting that even though
in the scenario there is GM-color disagreement, and GM-color errors,
and even though</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">GM-color
matters are matters of fact – not matters of opinion -, and even
though some objects are GM-green, etc., there might not be objective
GM-color, then one might as well ask why you think there is objective
color, and moreover, why you think there is objective </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness, or objective moral wrongness, </span></i><span style="font-weight: normal">etc.
</span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Okay, fair enough. I
guess GM-color is objective after all, even if the aliens just made
up that particular sort of color vision. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
the fact that those evil scientists made up the function F in the
<a href="#Fscenario">F-scenario</a>, does not preclude objectivity of
F-badness, F-goodness, etc., either. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">It's very difficult to
come up with a correct definition of colloquial terms like
'objective', but whatever the reason is, it seems clear to me that
F-goodness could not be objective. But let me try something else:
social contract</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">theory. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">In my assessment,
that is a false theory. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I agree it's false, but
that's not what I'm getting at. My point is</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">that
for that matter, going by your assessments of objectivity, if social
contract</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">theory were
correct, morality would be objective. But that is clearly false,
since difference societies could come up with different social
contracts. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Actually, that would
not threaten objectivity, in the sense Craig uses the word, either –
Craig believes it would, but as in the alien case, Craig is mistaken.
</span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-weight: normal">A good analogy to see this is
legality – broadly speaking, including constitutionality when</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">there is a constitution, etc. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Legal matters are – at least usually – matters of fact, not
matters of opinion. So, they are objective in the relevant sense. And
of course, there is plenty of legal disagreement, legal errors, and
so on. And some things are legal, some aren't. So, there is objective
legality. But that if so even if different people in different
societies can make different laws.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
that's certainly not the sort of objectivity that Craig has in mind.
In fact, he says clearly that social contract</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">theory
would not be objective </span></span></span><a href="#objective7"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">[9]</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
since morality</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">would
not be independent of human opinion. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
base my assessment on Craig's own explanation of what 'objective'
means in his argument</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#objective2">[8]</a><a href="#objective7">[</a><a href="#objective7">9]</a><a href="#gay">[1</a><a href="#gay">5</a><a href="#gay">]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
He is mistaken about what would be objective under that conception of
objectivity. As the example above shows, whether – say – some
behavior is legal or not does not depend on anyone's</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">opinion.
</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Even
if some humans make the laws, it is a matter of fact whether a
certain behavior is legal, and there is legal disagreement, legal
error, and so on. The same would be true of morality if the social
contract theory Craig mentions</span></span></span><a href="#objective7"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[9]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">were
true</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> – </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">it
is not true, but that is another matter. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">But you're leaving
aside some of the things Craig says when explaining what he means by
'objective'. You're picking and choosing. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I'm considering his
explanation of what he </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">means
</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal">by objective (or, if you
like, what 'objective' means, in that context), and ruling out some
of his </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">claims </span></i><span style="font-weight: normal">about
what would or would not be objective, in that sense of the word
'objective'. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
That said, if one takes <i>all</i> of the claims that Craig makes
when defending and/or explaining his metaethical argument as a guide
to what Craig <i>means </i>by 'objective' in the context of his
defenses of the argument, then after reflection one ought to conclude
that Craig is using the word 'objective' <i>inconsistently</i> in the
defense of his metaethical argument.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Purely
for example, he claims that if social contract theory were true, then
morality would be subjective, because different contracts would yield
a different morality, like the morality of Nazi Germany, South Africa
during the Apartheid, etc., and allegedly that would make morality
subjective because humans make the contracts. But it's apparent that
such contracts would not prevent plenty of moral error, moral
disagreement, etc., just as there is plenty of legal error, legal
disagreement, etc. Yet, Craig maintains that moral disagreement and
error presuppose the objectivity of morality. </span></span></span><a href="#objective1"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[6]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, legal matters are matters of fact, not matters of opinion –
at least usually -, so they are objective. The same would happen in
the moral case, under social contract theory. The fact that some
humans made up the law or contract has no bearing on any of that.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
some other statemen</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">ts,
Craig confuses</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="background: transparent">
</span></span></span><a href="#objective9">two very different
matters</a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">,
and so on. </span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<span style="background: transparent">On the other hand, if one
assumes Craig is using the word 'objective' consistently in the
context of his metaethical argument, and takes only some of his
claims as a guide to what he means – which ones is something one
may need to assess by context –, then some of the other claims he
makes are false – he just made some serious errors in assessing
what is or would be objective, in the sense in which he is using the
word 'objective'. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<span style="background: transparent">Pick your choice. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b><span style="background: transparent">Bob:
</span></b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">I
think Craig made no mistakes when he explained what he meant by
'objective' and why social contract theories are not forms of
objective morality – i. e., there would be no objective moral
goodness, etc., if they were true. </span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b><span style="background: transparent">Alice:
</span></b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">I
already showed conclusively that he made serious mistakes in that
context. </span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b><span style="background: transparent">Bob:
</span></b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">I
disagree. But in any case, the point is that without binding moral
duties, there would be no objective moral duties. Now, </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">how
would moral duties bind <a href="#aliens">species#5</a>, given that
they only have #5-morality? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">Alice: </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">There
are options, like: </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">1.</span></b><span style="background: transparent">
</span><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">They
would have #5-moral obligations but not moral obligations.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">2. </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">They
would have</span></span><span style="background: transparent"> </span><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">moral
obligations linked to the #5-good and #5-bad instead of the good and
the bad.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">3.</span></b><span style="background: transparent">
</span><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">They
would have both #5-moral and moral obligations, but they would only
care about the former.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
There are other options, but I don't need to take a stance, since
none of them seems to be a problem for objective morality, or for
objective #5-morality.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">Bob: </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">Let's
tackle your first option: if aliens of species #5 only have #5-moral
obligations but not moral obligations, then they're not bound by
morality. At most, they're bound by #5-morality. Besides, it's
extremely implausible. Don't you think if they were to, say,
experiment on humans causing horrible pain just to do science, they
would be breaking their moral obligations? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">Alice: </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">That's
not clear. Assuming 1., those aliens </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">do
not have a sense of right and wrong</span></span></i><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">,
but only a sense of #5-right and #5-wrong. Can beings who </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">can't
tell right from wrong</span></span></i><span style="background: transparent">
</span><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">(not
without first studying humans or other beings with a sense of right
and wrong, anyway) have moral obligations?</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="background: transparent">It's an interesting question,
but not one I would have to take a stance on. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__56_1305995196"></a>
<span style="background: transparent"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
still, </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">if </span></i><span style="font-weight: normal">objective
morality requires rejecting option 1., you haven't shown that there
is objective morality. Yes, granted, the Holocaust was immoral, and
it would have been so even if the Nazis had convinced everyone that
it wasn't. Also, moral matters are matters of fact, not matters of
opinion. And so on. But if objectivity in the sense in which Craig is
using the word requires </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">more
</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal">than that, including
claims about aliens, then I don't know that there are objective moral
values and duties. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">Bob: </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">Well,
I disagree. Let's now tackle option 2. In that case, maybe their
obligations would be radically different from ours. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">Alice: </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">I'm
not sure how radically. That's a matter of alien biology. Still, that
particular point seems to count against option 2. But again, I
needn't take a stance, so this is not a problem for my views. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">Bob: </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">Okay,
how about 3? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="background: transparent">They wouldn't care about their
moral obligations. But would they be acting irrationally if they only
complied with their #5-moral obligations, but not with their moral
obligations? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">Alice: </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">In
terms of means-to-ends rationality, generally no. And I don't see any
sense of 'rational' in which they would be acting irrationally. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__54_1305995196"></a>
<b><span style="background: transparent">Bob: </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">But
I'm not talking about m-e rationality. Let 'v-rationality' stand for
the sort of rationality under which there are values that is
irrational for any agent to have. Would it be v-irrational for them
to [positively] value being #5-morally good, but place no value on
being morally good? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">Alice: </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">I
don't need to take a stance, but i</span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">f
</span></span></i><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">there
is some concept – i. e., v-rationality -, maybe it would be
v-irrational for them to [positively] value being #5-morally good,
but not [positively] value being morally good. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">But
that's not a problem. For that matter, we may stipulate #5 aliens</span></span><span style="background: transparent">
</span><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">wouldn't
</span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">care</span></span></i><span style="background: transparent">
</span><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">about
v-rationality, but about </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">#5-v-rationality</span></span></i><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">,
and maybe it would be #5-irrational for us humans to [positively]
value being morally good, but not [positively] value being #5-morally
good. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">Bob: </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">The
point is that moral values and duties would not be binding. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b><span style="background: transparent">Alice: </span></b><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">I'm
still trying to figure out what you mean by “binding”, given that
moral statements would still be true or false regardless of what any
person believes; moral matters would still be matters of fact, etc. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="background: transparent">Regardless, let me put it this
way: I'm committed to the view that the Holocaust was immoral, and it
would have been so even if the Nazis had convinced everyone that it
wasn't. I'm also committed to the view that moral matters are matters
of fact, not matters of opinion. And so on. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; line-height: 150%">
<i><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">If
</span></span></i><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">that
is enough for moral values and duties to be objective in the sense in
which you and Craig are using the words, then I accept that the
second premise of the metaethical argument is true. But nothing that
happens with aliens or alien moralities will help your case for
premise 1 of Craig's metaethical argument.</span></span></span><span style="background: transparent">
</span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; line-height: 150%">
<i><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">If
</span></span></i><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">moral
objectivity, in the sense you and Craig are using the words, is
incompatible with the existence of #5-moral goodness, #3-moral
goodness, etc. (all properties different from each other), then I do
not accept premise 2. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-style: normal"><b><span style="background: transparent">Bob:
</span></b></span><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">It's
obvious that there are objective moral values and duties, under a
conception of objectivity that makes different alien moralities
impossible. If those aliens made judgments very different from ours,
either they would be very mistaken, or we would be. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b><span style="background: transparent">Alice:
</span></b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">I
disagree. But let's go back </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
your </span></span></span></span><a href="#Fscenario"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">F-scenario</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
or rather a variant of it. Let's suppose for the sake of the argument
that DCT is true as you claim, but that someone programs the
functonians. What would the functonians</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">be
mistaken about? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Actually,
they would not even be conscious, since they would have no souls.
They would not value anything; they would just look like they value
it, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That's
not the issue. Let's modify the scenario, and let's consider the
G-scenario. It's like the </span></span></span></span><a href="#Fscenario"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">F-scenario</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
but instead of silicon-based AI, the scientists use genetic
engineering to make beings with huge brains, and language, math,
engineering, etc., skills vastly superior to those of the smartest
human beings, and who evaluate things very differently from the way
humans</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">do,
following a function G, which is not as horrible as F, but is very
different from anything like human evaluations. Let's call these
beings 'gontonians'. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Let's
say</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">gontonians
would properly reckon that the existence of God is a G-bad thing –
intrinsically so -, and surely wouldn't be taking orders from her
even if they believed she exists. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
What would you say then, about the gontonians?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't know, but plausibly, they would be making false moral claims,
not true G-claims. They would be vastly confused about moral
goodness, moral obligations, etc. They would have moral obligations
if and only if God gave them commands, and if so, their obligations
would be God's commands. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Whether
they would have </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">moral</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">obligations
is not the point. The point is that the gontonians</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">would
make objectively true G-good judgments, judgments of G-obligations,
etc., regardless of God's orders, or resemblance to God, etc.,
because </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">they
–</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">i.
e. the gontonians – would be the users of the words, and the
meaning of their words would be determined by their usage, not by
God's words or properties. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It's
their language, but actually, the gontonians</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">would
be using their terms to mean the same we mean by moral terms. The
fact that they are making evaluations like that implies so. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">It
doesn't. And we may even stipulate that the gontonians themselves
assess that G-goodness is not moral goodness, but they don't care
about moral goodness. They care about G-goodness. There is no error
on their part. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">No,
the gontonians would be vastly confused about morality, due to the
actions of their evil makers. And it seems they would also be vastly
confused above metaethics. But perhaps, God would allow them to see
moral truth. What do I know? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
guess we'll just continue to disagree on that. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
guess so. Back to the </span></span></span></span><a href="#Fscenario"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">F-scenario</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
I realized</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
we do not need to actually make the functonians. In fact, if you were
right, then for each function F that assigns a certain value to
things, there would be multiple properties – many, perhaps
infinitely many of them instantiated -, like, say, the property of
having F-value 394. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
But that gives you a massively bloated ontology.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">One
can turn the argument around: given that you accept that there is
objective color, similarly we don't need to actually design the GM
humans to have GM-color, etc. Would that bloat your ontology? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
moreover, </span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal">each
of those properties you bring up might be </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">identified</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">with
some disjunction of conjunctions of simpler properties, etc., as in
the moral goodness suggestion. So, it does not follow that there
would be so many </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">different
</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">properties,
any more than that follows from the fact that one may consider
disjunctions of conjunctions of ordinary properties – unless the
identifications fail, which might or might not be the case, but you
haven't shown it is. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Regardless, it seems to me that chances are there are plenty of
(perhaps not instantiated) properties, so I'm not sure how an
ontology with many properties would be problematic. What is vastly
more problematic is your implicit commitment to certain exobiology
claims.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Okay,
so</span></span></span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">just
to be crystal clear: do you hold that scenarios like those </span></span></span></span><a href="#aliens"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">alien</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
scenarios – or relevantly similar – are likely to happen – at
least eventually? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
you mean invasions of Earth and things like that, then no. But if you
mean aliens evolving differently and, as a result, ending up with
some alien morality that is different from morality, then yes, given
sufficient time and space, that seems probable to me. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That's
not to say they probably exist now. I don't know whether they do. But
given that the universe will</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">last
for a </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">very
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">long
time, if it didn't happen already, then it seems probable to me at
some time in the future, some intelligent social aliens will evolve,
with complex language, capacity for space travel, etc. But it's a
very tentative assessment. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Now, if that happens – i. e., if such aliens evolve -, I would
expect that they probably would have something like morality, though
I don't how similar their social contexts – i. e., in which they
use their moral-like language - would be to ours.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In any event, a considerable similarity between their alien morality
and morality would be unsurprising, but a match would be surprising
in my view, even if they evolved or will evolve from something closer
to our ancestors than octopuses, orcas or elephants are.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">All
that said, this is a </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">very
tentative</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">assessment.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
if I'm making a mistake in my probabilistic assessments of the alien
scenarios, then my mistake, but that</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">has
no bearing on the metaethical points I made, or the points about
objectivity. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
On the other hand, you do seem committed to some exobiology claims.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="exobiology2"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
let's also make this clear: do you hold that smart aliens with</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">faculties
relevantly different from our moral faculty do not exist, or if</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">they
do, those aliens would be very mistaken about morality? - and the
same holds for all of the future of the universe. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Yes,
that seems very probable. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Thanks
for making that stance clear. It's a clearly unwarranted exobiology
claim. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">No,
it's warranted on theism. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Theism
itself is unwarranted – at least, after sufficient reflection -,
and if theism commits you to such exobiology claims, then that also
provides an extra argument against theism. And if it's only the
particular type of theism you believe in that is committed to those
exobiology claims, that provides an extra argument against that
particular type of theism. But we're getting side-tracked. </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Would
you like to go back to discussing the metaethical argument? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
disagree with you about warrant, etc., but okay, let's go back to the
metaethical argument. So, even</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">if
I granted just for the sake of the argument that a species-specific
morality might be objective in the relevant sense, there are further
problems for a non-theistic view. For instance, that evolved morality</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">would
be the herd morality. But why follow the herd morality, instead of
self-interest? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Human
ancestors never lived in herds, but leaving your derogatory term
aside, the point is that humans also value not behaving immorally,
doing morally praiseworthy actions, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Now,
it's very common to talk about 'self-interest'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">referring
by that term to </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">some
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
the</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">interests
and/or values of a human being, but not all of them, so that's fine.
But one ought to keep in mind that human beings – non-psychopaths,
at least – also care about other human beings. Humans</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">tend
to care the most about close family members, or a spouse, etc., then
about friends, etc., and then even about strangers. So, it's not that
human beings only care about self-interest. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
non-psychopathic human beings normally do</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">value
[positively] being good people, not behaving immorally, etc. - an
exception might be some philosophers (e. g., error theorists) and a
few other people , but that's a minuscule proportion of the human
population. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, the values of non-psychopathic humans are certainly not limited
to self-interest. So, even in a sense of m-e-rationality, we normally
have reasons to not behave immorally, to behave in a praiseworthy
manner, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
even non-psychopathic humans sometimes value things that put them in
conflict with the requirements of</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">morality.
Let's say a public employee is offered a bribe. He positively values
not behaving immorally, he also positively values having more money,
which he can get if he takes the bribe. Furthermore, suppose that
corruption is widespread where he works, his bosses are in on it,
etc., so he shouldn't expect punishment for taking the bribe. On the
contrary, his job situation will become worse if he refuses – he
would be seen as perhaps dangerous, a wild card who might spill the
beans, etc.</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">And
he values positively being in good terms with his bosses. So, there
is the question of what he values the most, given the situation, and
what's the most likely result if he chooses one course of action vs.
the other, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">What's
your point? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">What
if, considering all of his values (i. e., what he values and how much
he values it, positively or negatively), and the probability of the
results, the expected value of behaving immorally – in this case,
taking the bribe – outweighs that of not behaving immorally? Maybe
all things considered, from the perspective of m-e rationality, he
ought to take the bribe, which would be immoral. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">At
least, the vast majority of situations people actually face are not
like that, but that aside, let's say that that happens. What is the
objection? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
objection is that in a situation like that, even a non-psychopath,
all-things-considered </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">ought
to behave immorally. </span></i></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
the m-e sense of 'ought', if the end in the 'all-thing-considered'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">stipulation
is to maximize expected value, then yes, maybe he ought to. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In the usual moral sense of 'ought', then obviously – I'd say
transparently tautologically – he ought not to behave immorally.
And if the usual moral sense of 'ought' reduces – but I'm not
saying it does – to a m-e sense in which the end is not to behave
immorally, then the answer remains the same: no – obviously, and
transparently tautologically.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
But that would still not challenge objective morality. So, what is
the difficulty?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
would destroy the action-guidingness of moral judgments. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">No,
it wouldn't. In most cases, it would still be overall m-e irrational
to behave immorally. Granted, in </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">some
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">cases
that would not be so. But that's probably true. So, I see no problem.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">What
about psychopaths? Maybe they m-e rationally ought to do atrocious
things, all things considered. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Usually,
psychopaths</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">have
instrumental reasons not to behave immorally, such as punishment
avoidance. But sometimes they have no such reasons. We've already
been through this before. I see no challenge here.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
if theism is true, it would never be m-e rational for a human being
to behave immorally, because if theism is true, people ought to
believe it's true [that's an 'ought'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
epistemic rationality], and ought to factor in afterlife punishment. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">What
a person should do in order to maximize expected value depends on the
information available to them, and after reflection, people should
conclude that theism is false. Not to mention all sorts of other
problems. But those are issues for another debate. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Even if your claim that on theism, it would never be m-e rational for
a human being to behave immorally, is both warranted and true, that's
no good reason to believe that theism true, or to assign greater
probability to the hypothesis that theism is true than before.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
disagree with your assessments about theism, of course. But that
aside, there are other objections to the views your replies suggest.
For example, the problem of moral disagreement. If God did not exist,
our observations of moral disagreement would be a powerful argument
against objective morality, even in the sense in which you understand
the word 'objective'. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Craig
says that moral disagreement presupposes objective morality</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#objective1">[</a><a href="#objective1">6]</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
Are you implying Craig is mistaken in thinking so? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Let
me rephrase: If God did not exist, our observations of apparent moral
disagreement would be a powerful argument against objective morality,
even in the sense in which you understand 'objective'. They would
indeed work as an argument from apparent disagreement to the
conclusion that people are talking past each other, and so there is
no common meaning of moral terms, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Two
points: </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>1.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
our observations of apparent moral disagreement were a powerful
argument against objective morality for that reason, it would be
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">improper
to deny that</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">conclusion
by assuming theism</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">;
rather, that would indeed be a powerful argument against objective
morality. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">One
might mirror your argument: If a </span></span></span></span><a href="#cgod"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">c-god
</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">did
not exist, then apparent disagreement about cruelty would be a
powerful argument against objective cruelty.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
At any rate, if you think you do have an argument that supports
theism based on disagreement or apparent disagreement, I would invite
you to make it, but I will point out that all of this is already far
removed from Craig's metaethical argument.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b><span style="background: transparent">Bob:
</span></b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">I
disagree with your points </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b><span style="background: transparent">1</span></b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">.
and </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b><span style="background: transparent">2.</span></b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">,
but I reckon that's a matter for another debate too. Now, let's go
back to the alien scenarios, because there is an objection I haven't
raised yet: Moral Twin Earth. Horgan and Timmons construct “Moral
Twin Earth”</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="background: transparent">
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">scenarios</span></span></span></span></span><a href="#tearth">[1</a><a href="#tearth">7</a><a href="#tearth">]</a><a href="#tearth2">[1</a><a href="#tearth2">8</a><a href="#tearth2">]</a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">,
which are relevantly similar to your </span></span></span></span></span><a href="#aliens">alien</a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">
scenarios, and in Moral Twin Earth there is actual disagreement
between Earthers and Twin Earthers, rather than miscommunication. </span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<span style="background: transparent">To be clear, I do not endorse
the authors' metaethical views, and in particular – of course – I
hold that there are moral properties and moral facts, but still,
their Moral Twin Earth scenarios are useful in this context because
it is intuitiv</span>ely clear that Earthers and Twin Earthers would
actually disagree, rather than talk past each other. Your alien
scenarios may obscure that fact for some people by introducing aliens
that are more different from humans in a number of ways, but the
point remains that the aliens and humans would disagree – rather
than talk past each other.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">The
fact that the <a href="#aliens">aliens</a> are different from humans
in several respects other than morality does not obscure any facts.
If anything, the fact that t-humans</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">look
so similar to humans in many respects </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">might</span></i>
<span style="font-weight: normal">obscure the fact that </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">in
the Twin Earth Scenario</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal">,
they are in fact talking past each other - at least, if one may set
some worries aside. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
By the way, I would rather call the Twin Earthers “t-humans” to
make it clear I don't think they would be human, at least given the
psychological differences required for convergence to such different
moralities.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">What
we call them is not the point. What worries are you talking about?
And how would Moral Twin Earth be any [relevantly] different from
your <a href="#aliens">alien</a> scenarios? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I
do not claim that they are relevantly different. But I'm not certain
that they are not. It depends on how one construes the Moral Twin
Earth scenario. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">On
that note, a</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">first worry is
that the Twin Earth scenario in a paper</span><a href="#tearth2"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[18]</span></span></span></span></a>
<span style="font-weight: normal">stipulates that Earthers converge
to a consequentialist folk morality – which I think is false, but
not the point -, and Twin Earthers converge to a non-consequentialist
folk morality. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
that only seems to tell us about convergence in regard to
obligations, not with regard to moral goodness or t-moral goodness,
which might still be converging to the same place so to speak, and so
at least Earthers and Twin Earthers might</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">not
be talking past each other with regard to goodness</span> – <span style="font-weight: normal">and
that would be different from the alien scenarios. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">Still,
I think</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">one may properly
stipulate that Earthers and Twin Earthers also converge differently
in that regard. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">A
second worry is that the Twin Earth scenario in question</span><a href="#tearth2"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[18]</span></span></span></span></a>
<span style="font-weight: normal">does not specify whether Twin
Earthers would converge to their deontological morality only on their
own – i. e., without Earthers -, or even if Earthers are present.
That stipulation may not be required in the case of Horgan and
Timmons's paper – given that they were reply to a specific sort of
moral realist theory -, or perhaps it is implicit, but it seems
relevant in this context, since a convergence that is dependent on
whether they meet Earthers – or whether they study and understand
the causes of the differences in their psychology, etc. -, raises a
number of other issues, and that might</span> <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">make
the scenarios relevantly dissimilar from the <a href="#aliens">alien</a>
scenarios. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
the alien scenarios, it seems clearly implied</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">that
whether they meet humans does not affect where their morality
converges to, but just on case, one may also add the stipulation that</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">the aliens converge to different
folk moralities under ideal reflection – assuming there is such
reflection - even if they meet humans, or each other. Given that, one
would need to add that condition to the Twin Earth scenario too, in
order to to make sure</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">it's
relevantly similar. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
A third worry is how similar the moralities – or analogues to
morality - are. For example, if different people in the US use the
word 'car' very slightly differently – a difference imperceptible
in daily life – we do not say they're talking past each other.
There is some tolerance in our colloquial language.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, if the differences between Twin Earth folk morality, and Earth
folk morality were so minuscule, maybe – with the usual tolerance
in colloquial language – it would be proper to say they're not
talking past each other.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
think the <a href="#aliens">alien</a> scenarios clearly indicated a
much</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">greater difference than
that, given the fact that the psychological differences between any
of those aliens and humans (or between each other) appear</span>
<span style="font-weight: normal">considerably greater than between
Earthers and Twin Earthers, and in particular their social structures
are in fact quite different from ours. But one may also add the
stipulation that the differences in judgments and patterns of
judgments are clearly noticeable, even after reflection, etc. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">As
I understand the Twin Earth scenarios, the differences between
Earthers and Twin Earthers are big enough for them to be talking past
each other – especially given that it's stipulated that after
reflection they converge to different moralities, and the
deontological vs. consequentialist stipulation</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">-,
but if that is not so and I didn't interpret the Twin Earth scenario
properly, that would not affect the alien scenarios or</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">the
conclusions based on them. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
A fourth worry is that the Twin Earth scenarios were constructed in
order to deal with some specific types of moral realism, and so they
may assume some of the implications of those forms of realism in
order to use them against them. But the alien scenarios do not make
such assumptions.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
There are other worries, but I think those are the most salient ones.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">Now,
even though I do think in the Moral Twin Earth scenarios – as I
understand them -, Earthers and Twin Earthers are indeed talking past
each other – in fact, after reflection, that seems clear to me -,
even if I'm mistaken about that – because, say, I missed a relevant
feature of the scenarios</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">and
misinterpreted them -, that would not affect my points about the
<a href="#aliens">alien</a> scenarios. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Suppose
you may set those worries aside – e. g., the differences in the
Twin Earth case are not so minuscule, etc.</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">Then,
it's still clear that there is real disagreement between Earthers and
Twin Earthers, not just miscommunication. Both Earthers and Twin
Earthers would still disagree about </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">what
to do</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
since morality is action guiding. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">There
may well be </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">conflict</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">due
to the fact that some of the actions of Twin Earthers might be –
depending on what they are – properly regarded as a bad thing by
Earthers and some Earthers may well be motivated to prevent those bad
things, and conversely some actions by some Earthers might be
properly regarded as a t-bad thing by Twin Earthers, and so on. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
for that matter, there may well be conflict between an Earther -</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">a
human, of course -, and, say, a lion that is killing other humans, or
a Humboldt squid, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
This is not to say that there is a disagreement about any facts of
the matter, between the lion and the person, or between the squid and
the person.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Granted, Twin Earthers are vastly more intelligent than lions or
squid and can talk, etc., but the point is that conflict does not
entail disagreement about any facts, even if the word 'disagreement'
may also be used in some contexts to mean 'conflict', or something
along those lines.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
However, there is no disagreement about facts, and in particular
about whether or not something is morally good or not.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
that is counterintuitive. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Not
to me, after reflection. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
think you're biting a big bullet. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't think I'm biting any bullets. But I think you are, and your
commitment to certain </span></span></span></span><a href="#exobiology"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">exobiology</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#exobiology2">clai</a><a href="#exobiology2">m(s)</a></span></u></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
a particularly big one. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I
disagree, of course. But let me raise a different challenge: even if
there could be objective morality without God, morality would still
be </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">arbitrary. </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Some
aliens would have a different morality, and morality would be just a
byproduct of evolution. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
derogatory expression </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">“</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">just
a byproduct” is clear, but the rest is not. What do you mean by
“arbitrary”? By the way, why would you say “byproduct”,
rather than “product”? - other than as a derogatory word, that
is? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
you're suggesting it would be a side effect of some adaptations, that
does not follow. It</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">may
well be that some or even most aspects of our moral faculty are
adaptations. It might even be that all of them are. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
</span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">we </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">are
the result of unguided evolution, so it's hardly surprising that our
moral faculty is also the result of unguided evolution. In which
sense would that be arbitrary? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It's
not just our moral faculty, but rather, evolution decides what is
morally good or bad. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That's
like saying that evolution decides what's red or green. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Well,
in a sense, it does, if some aliens could just evolve some
alien-color vision. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Of
course, some aliens could evolve some alien-color vision. In fact,
even here on Earth, other animals have very different
other-animal-color vision. If that's all you mean by saying that
evolution decides what's red or green, or what's good or bad, I would
say that you're not using the word 'decides' in a standard manner. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
At any rate, if all you're saying is that if God did not exist, some
aliens could evolve some alien moral sense, then that's true. But so
what? In what sense would that make morality arbitrarily?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Let
me put it this way: if we had evolved differently, maybe slavery just
for profit would not be immoral. That makes morality totally
arbitrary. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That's
at best imprecise. If evolution had been different, maybe we would
not exist, and while it would still be </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">immoral
</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">for
any possible human being to engage in slavery just for profit, maybe
the beings who would live on Earth instead of us (say, alternates)
would not have any alternate-morality such that it would be
alternate-immoral to engage in slavery for profit. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
That seems improbable, though. If they are intelligent social animals
like us, probably, their alternate-morality would have an injunction
against slavery just for profit. Alternate morality would not be
morality, but there would probably be a large area of overlap, where
they are similar.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Still, this is not central. What if slavery just for profit were not
alternate-immoral?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
has nothing to do with what is immoral for us human beings to do.
<br/>
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
that shows morality would be arbitrary. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't see how. In which sense would morality be arbitrary? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
the sense it would depend on the contingent facts of evolution. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">No,
it wouldn't. It does not depend on evolution that it's immoral for
any human being to engage in slavery just for profit. If evolution
had been different, that fact would remain true. Maybe there would be
no agents who would know that fact, or care at all about it, but
what's the problem? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For that matter, if evolution had been different, but orange trees
were like they actually are, their fruits would still be mostly
orange, even if the alternates had a different visual system and
didn't see or care about orangeness.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
then it would just be a byproduct or a product of evolution that
there are agents who care about right and wrong. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Of
course, as I said, we are the result of evolution. Why the negatively
loaded word “byproduct”? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
point is that that would make morality arbitrary!</span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't see how. In which sense would morality be arbitrary? </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
already explained that. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
see nothing in your statements supporting your claim that morality
would be arbitrary in any interesting sense. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
disagree, of course, but given I will not be able to persuade you,
let me raise another challenge: free will. If you believe God does
not exist, how do you know that causal determinism is not true? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't know whether causal determinism is true or how that is related
to God's existence, but at any rate, I'm a compatibilist, so I see no
problem in that regard. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I
see. I disagree, but a debate on free will is a matter for another
time, and it seems we've covered the main topics, so let's call it a
day. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#6666ff"><b>3. Conclusion.</b></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
As I mentioned before, I reckon Alice wins the debate, hands down.
But I invite any interested readers to try to improve Bob's
arguments.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="Acknowledgement"></a>
<font color="#6666ff"><b>Acknowledgement. </b></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">Some
of the main ideas in this post are from a poster that goes by the
pseudonym “Bomb#20” at <a href="http://talkfreethought.org/">talkfreethought.org</a>.
I make no claim that he agrees with most or all of my points, though,
since I also took some</span></span><span style="background: transparent">
</span><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">ideas
from several other sources, and added</span></span><span style="background: transparent">
several </span><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">more
I came up with. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><font color="#6666ff"><b>Notes:
</b></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="longerreply"></a>
[a] I posted another reply to Craig's metaethical argument <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1al-RuUEVxHk3ldQQC8o0U5ES3T7MfnmxdaKjVAl0Zzc/pub">elsewhere</a>,
in a more traditional format – i. e., not as a hypothetical debate.
Some parts of it are outdated, in the sense that I would write them
somewhat differently if I did it now, but for the most part, I would
make the same arguments today.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Still, some of the
arguments are improved and/or more thoroughly developed in the
dialogue above.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="meter2"></a>
[b] One might use a more precise definition in order to deal with
questions like 'What if the bar is heated? Does an oldmeter remains
the same?', but that is not necessary in this context. In any case,
one may just stipulate for the purposes of the example that
'oldmeter' is the distance between the lines in question even if the
bar is heated.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="great"></a>[c]
It is debatable whether there is an ordinary term 'great' precise
enough to do the philosophical work required in that context, but I'm
granting that for the sake of the argument, to simplify.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="color0"></a>
[d] There are differences between human languages when it comes to
color, and some languages distinguish colors differently from others.
Also, there are some differences between the color vision of
different humans with normal color vision. But the point I'm trying
to illustrate does not require that I address those issues, and it
would make the example too long. At any rate, Craig actually
considers red and green as examples of objectivity, even in the
context of explaining what he means by 'objective' in the metaethical
argument, and in the context of defending it. <a href="#color">[13]</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="consequentialism"></a>
[e] I'm not a consequentialist, but I think it's plausible sometimes
humans have a moral obligation to act in a certain way because that
is required to prevent a bad result, or more precisely, a moral
obligation to <i>choose </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">to
act in a certain way because the agent reckons and/or should reckon
that that is required to prevent a bad result, given the information
available to her – even if given more information, perhaps she
would have a different obligation. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">This is not crucial
to the reply to the alien objection, though. The basic point is that
humans have morality, #3-aliens would have #3-morality, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="aliendisagreement"></a>
[f] Or even with some of the aliens, if – for instance - some of
the aliens learned about [human] morality, made a computer based on
human brains that can properly assess morality – not #3-morality,
etc. -, and then use the computer to debate with humans, just for
fun. But that's a side point.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br/>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><font color="#6666ff"><b>References:
</b></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="flannagan"></a>
[-1] As argued by Matthew Flannagan in the comments thread on a post
at the Secular Outpost.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Link to the post:
<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/09/21/divine-commands-and-informative-identity/">http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/09/21/divine-commands-and-</a><a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/09/21/divine-commands-and-informative-identity/">informative-identity/</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="law"></a>[0]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-law-debate</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">[1]
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="foundation"></a>
William Lane Craig, “The Most Gruesome of Guests”, in “Is
Goodness Without God Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and
Ethics”, edited by Robert. Garcia and Nathan King.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Mark Murphy, “Theism, Atheism, and the Explanation of Moral Value”,
in “Is Goodness Without God Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism,
and Ethics”, edited by Robert. Garcia and Nathan King.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Also, Morriston
explains what Craig means by 'ontological foundation' or 'grounding'
in “God and the Ontological Foundation of Morality”, Religious
Studies (2012) 48, 15–34 f Cambridge University Press 2011</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Link: http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/DoesGodGround.html</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__41_1135762541"></a><a name="harris"></a>
[2]
<a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-foundation-of-morality-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-foundation-of-morality-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/how-are-morals-objectively-grounded-in-god">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/how-are-morals-objectively-grounded-in-god</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-euthyphro-dilemma-once-again</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="define"></a>
[3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defining-god</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="meter"></a>[4]
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html</span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="cruelty"></a>
[5] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-euthyphro-dilemma-once-more</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="objective1"></a>
[6]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-19</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="dependence"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[7]
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/theistic-ethics-and-mind-dependence</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="objective2"></a><a name="__DdeLink__35_960774861"></a>
[8] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/objective-or-absolute-moral-values</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="objective7"></a><a name="__DdeLink__32_960774861"></a>
[9]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-20</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="alien"></a><a name="__DdeLink__54_1135762541"></a>
[10]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-21</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="survey"></a>
[11] http://philpapers.org/surveys</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="darwin"></a>
[12] Street, Sharon, “A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of
Value,” Philosophical Studies 127, no. 1 (January 2006): 109-166.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">“Reply to Copp:
Naturalism, Normativity, and the Varieties of Realism Worth Worrying
About,” Philosophical Issues (Nous), vol. 18 on “Interdisciplinary
Core Philosophy,” ed. Water Sinnott-Armstrong, 2008, pp. 207-228.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Source:
https://files.nyu.edu/ss194/public/sharonstreet/Writing.html</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="McCord"></a>
[13] Sayre-McCord, Geoff, "Moral Realism", <em>The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition)</em>, Edward N.
Zalta (ed.).
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/moral-realism/</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="color"></a>[14]
http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Defender_podcast/20040801MoralArgumentPart3.mp3</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/Those-Who-Deny-Objective-Moral-Values</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="gay"></a>[15]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-christian-perspective-on-homosexuality</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="racism"></a>
[16]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/warrant-for-the-moral-arguments-second-premiss</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="tearth"></a>
[17] Horgan and Timmons, “New Wave Moral Realism Meets Moral Twin
Earth”; <em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Journal
of Philosophical Research</span></span></em> 16:447-465 (1991)
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">http://philpapers.org/rec/HORNWM</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="tearth2"></a><a name="tearch2"></a>
[18] Horgan and Timmons, “Analytical Functionalism Meets Moral Twin
Earth”, in <span style="font-variant: normal">“</span><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Minds,
Ethics, and Conditionals: Themes from the Philosophy of Frank
Jackson”, edited by Ian Ravenscroft. Oxford University Press
(2009). </span></span></em>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><em><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Link:
</span></span></em>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">http://thorgan.faculty.arizona.edu/sites/thorgan.faculty.arizona.edu/files/Analytical%20Moral%20Functionalism%20Meets%20Moral%20Twin%20Earth.pdf</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">http://philpapers.org/rec/HORAMF</p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-83685405364020668492015-02-01T14:38:00.000-08:002015-02-06T14:16:41.013-08:00Craig's metaethical argument, DCT, and the ontological foundation of moral goodness<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.7.2 (Linux)">
<meta name="created" content="20150119;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20150201;193715972029923">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; color: #000000; line-height: 120% }
a:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" text="#000000" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#6666ff"><b>1. Introduction. </b></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
this post, I assess Craig's metaethical argument by means of a
h</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">ypothetical
debate</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">between
Bob - a defender of Craig's metaethical argument<a href="#longerreply">[a]</a>,
and of Craig's version of Divine Command Theory (henceforth, DCT) –
and Alice – a non-theist who believes that the second premise of
Craig's argument is true. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Alice also believes that the argument from moral evil – at least,
in its evidential version, if there is a significant difference
between the logical and evidential versions – is a decisive
argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, morally
perfect (henceforth, omnimax) being – though she holds that there
are other, independent and also decisive arguments.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Still, the debate below is not about the argument from moral evil,
but mostly about DCT and potential non-theistic accounts, and Craig's
first premise.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Before I go on, I would like to clarify that:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>1.</b> I don't claim that Craig holds all of the views defended by
Bob. Bob is a fictional character, as is Alice. When I attribute
views to Craig, I will make that clear, providing relevant links
and/or references if needed (e. g., I won't provide a reference or
link if I say Craig claims that God exists because it's obvious that
he does, but I will if I say he makes a specific claim about the
concept of God).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2.
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't claim that any of the views in the post</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">are
original.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#6666ff"><b>2. The hypothetical debate. </b></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">No</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">omnimax being
exists. There are several</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">ways
to see that, but – for example -, an omnimax being would not create
a universe</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">with so much
suffering, or with moral agents with an imperfect moral sense. They
would have flawless</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">moral
knowledge. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, she would prevent at least many of the instances of moral
evil that actually occur – well, actually, she wouldn't need to
intervene because she would not create beings inclined to do such
evil in the first place, but in any event, if such beings existed
even if not created by her, she just wouldn't allow that.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
You're mistaken. God exists. And he is the greatest conceivable
being, so in particular, he is an omnimax being. In fact, the very
existence of moral evil shows that God exists. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
There is a very clear argument, defended by Craig:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P1:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not
exist. <a href="#law">[0]</a></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P2:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Objective
moral values and duties do exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>C:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">God
exists. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
I'm familiar with Craig's argument, and I agree that P2 is true, but
I see no good reason to think P1 is true. W</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">hy
do you believe P1? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Only
theism can provide an ontological grounding of moral goodness and/or
of moral obligations</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
– </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
Craig's DCT does -, in the sense of informative identification. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">For
example, moral goodness are</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">identified
with resemblance to some qualities of God, whereas moral obligations
are</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">identified
with God's commands. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">This
is akin to the way in which, say, water is identified with H2O, heat
with molecular motion, or – to use Craig's own example – the way
in which a meter – in the past – was identified with the distance
between two lines on a bar in Paris. <a href="#foundation">[1]</a></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="circular"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Different
people in different contexts mean different things by 'God'. So,
let's be clear. What do you mean? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__44_1135762541"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
By 'God' I mean what Craig means, i. e., the greatest conceivable
being. In particular, given that moral goodness is a great-making
property, God is morally perfect <a href="#harris">[2]</a><a href="#define">[3]</a>
and that entails he is maximally morally good. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Okay,
so I will grant the water and heat identifications for the sake of
the argument, but let me point out that not having an informative
identification account is not a problem (see, for example, <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/morality-and-ontological-grounding-some.html">this
post</a></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>).
</b></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
aside, the account given by DCT</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
as you describe it, is not</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
only not </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">informative,
but it seems to be circular. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
fact, the account identifies</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness with resemblance to</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">God
in some respects, defines the word 'God'</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
'the greatest conceivable being', and uses 'great' in a way such that
'God is morally good'</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
a conceptual truth<a href="#harris">[2]</a>, and moreover, moral
goodness is a great-making property<a href="#define">[3]</a>. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">As
Craig says, asking why God is good is like asking why bachelors are
unmarried.<a href="#harris">[2]</a> But then, identifying moral
goodness with resemblance to God seems akin to identifying being
unmarried with resemblance to being who – by definition – is a
bachelor and has such-and-such properties. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
'God'</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
defined in</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">terms
of </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">greatness,
</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">not
in terms of </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness, </span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
it seems to me that a proper informative account of bachelorhood
would identify being a bachelor with being unmarried and having
such-and-such properties. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
that goes in the other direction. DCT seems similar not to an
identification of bachelorhood in terms of unmarriedness – plus
some other properties -, but to an identification of unmarriedness in
terms of bachelorhood, or more precisely, in terms of resemblance to
a certain bachelor. That seems viciously circular. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
disagree. I see no circularity problem. I don't know what you're
getting at. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Okay,
let's me raise the circularity issue from a different perspective. I
would ask you what</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">greatness
</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
– that is, I'm asking for</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
ontological foundation of greatness, in the sense of informative
identification. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If you reply that greatness is resemblance to God in some respects,
and you define 'God' as 'the greatest conceivable being', then there
is a circularity problem. Moreover, moral goodness is a great-making
property. So, it seems that to be great is to be morally good and to
have such-and-such properties (for some 'such-and-such'). But
according to DCT, to be morally good is to resemble the maximally
great being.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Do you see the problem?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
To be great is to be morally good and to have such-and-such
properties, and to be morally good is to resemble the greatest
conceivable being. That seems circular.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
You misunderstand the account. There is no circularity. For example,
one might stipulate</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
– </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
it was in the past – that to be a meter long is to be as long as
the distance between two lines on a certain standard bar. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If someone were to then ask what it is to be a meter long, it would
be informative to tell him that to be a meter long is to be as long
as the distance between two lines on the bar in question.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">That
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">informative.
The bar itself – or more precisely, the part of the bar between the
two lines - has the property of being a meter long, and indeed it is
the paradigm of a meter. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Similarly,
God has the property of being morally good – indeed, to a maximal
degree</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">-,
but also</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">God
is the paradigm of moral goodness, and that is not problematic. The
account of moral goodness provided by DCT is informative. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">:
Let's say 'meter'</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">defined</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
the distance between the lines in question, as it once was. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
someone asks what a meter is, it is proper and informative to tell
her that to be a meter long is to be as long as the distance between
the lines on </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
bar, over there, in Paris.</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#meter">[4]</a>,
and/or that a meter is a distance equal to the distance between the
lines on </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
bar, over there, in Paris.</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#meter">[4]</a>,
etc. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">On the other hand,
it would be improper, circular, and not informative to tell her that
to be a meter long is to be as long as the distance between two lines
that are at a distance of one meter, or that to be a meter long is to
be as long as the distance between the lines on a bar that has two
lines at a distance of one meter. That's what DCT looks like, as you
described it.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Do you see the
problem?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
I see, and know I understand in which way y</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">ou
misunderstand</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
account. There is no circularity in the account of moral goodness
provided by DCT. The account does not identify moral goodness with
resemblance to a being that has such-and-such properties, or more
precisely the property of greatness to a maximal degree or a maximum
degree. Rather, the account identifies moral goodness</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">with
resemblance to </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">God</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">the
maximally great being that actually exist</span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
with respect to some relevant qualities. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
the case of the meter, the way of identifying the paradigm was to say
it was the distance between two lines on </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
bar, over there in Paris. </span></i><a href="#meter"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[4]</span></span></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-weight: normal">In the case of moral goodness –
or even greatness -, the way of identifying the paradigm is to say
it's </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">the greatest
conceivable being, that being who actually exists. </span></i>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
What's the problem?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="oldmeter"></a>
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">In that case, the
definition of 'God' as 'the greatest conceivable being' only plays a
role as a means of </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">identifying
the object that is the paradigm</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal">,
and</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">it's not essential to
the account. That avoids circularity but still leaves us</span> <span style="font-weight: normal">in
the dark as to what moral goodness is. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">I don't agree. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Let us assume now and
for the sake of the argument that there is an omnipotent, omniscient,
maximally loving and kind being. Let's call that being 'Jane' –
that's just a proper name I'm using here. </span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">To
be clear, I just picked an – assumed – actual being by listing
some of her properties - enough properties to identify her uniquely
-, and then used a proper name – Jane – to name that being. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><a name="__DdeLink__48_1135762541"></a>
So, Jane is the only omnipotent, omniscient, maximally loving and
kind being that exists.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Let
us now pick the</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">meter
bar in Paris – that specific bar, which is still over there, in
Paris <a href="#meter">[</a><a href="#meter">4]</a></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
– </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
let's define 'oldmeter' to be a distance equal to the distance
between the two lines on that bar. That is a stipulative definition.
Let us call the bar 'Ted'. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
I have three questions:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__50_1135762541"></a>
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>1. </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none">Why
is Jane morally good?</span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2.
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Why
is Jane maximally great?</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>3.
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Why
is the distance between the two bars on Ted one oldmeter? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Bob: </b>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>1.</b></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is God, 'God' is defined as the greatest conceivable being, and it's
a conceptual truth that maximal greatness entails moral goodness. So,
Jane is morally good. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>2.</b></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is God, and 'God' is defined as the greatest conceivable being. So,
Jane is maximally great. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>3.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Ted
is the bar over there, in Paris <a href="#meter">[</a><a href="#meter">4]</a>,
because that was stipulated – i. e., 'Ted' is the name given to the
bar - , and 'oldmeter' is defined as the distance between the two
lines on the bar over there, in Paris <a href="#meter">[</a><a href="#meter">4]</a>.
So, the distance between the two lines in Ted is one oldmeter. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Alice: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Do
you see why your reply to the third question is very different from
your reply to the first and second questions? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Bob: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">No.
Why? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Alice: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Your
reply to the third</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">question
actually </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">informs</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">me
why the distance is one oldmeter, by explaining to me how 'oldmeter'
was defined, and that 'Ted' is the name given to the bar, etc. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, your first and second replies </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">leave
me in the dark as to why Jane is morally good, or great, let alone
maximally great. </span></i></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
fact, given your definition of 'God' as 'the greatest conceivable
being', the first part of your replies – namely, </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">“</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is God” - actually means</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
“</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is the greatest conceivable being”. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
I'm asking </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">why
</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is morally good, and </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">why
</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is maximally great, so insisting that Jane is the greatest
conceivable being </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">leaves
me in the dark</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
to </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">why</span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is maximally great, or morally good. Your reply is </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">uninformative.
</span></i></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">From
a slightly different perspective, the term 'oldmeter' is
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">stipulatively
defined </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
a distance equal to the distance between the two lines </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">on
the bar over there, in Paris</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#meter">[4]</a>,
so if somebody asks why the distance between the two lines </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">on
the bar over there, in Paris</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#meter">[4]</a>,
is one oldmeter long, it is a proper reply to explain that 'oldmeter'
is </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">defined
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
a distance equal to the distance between the two lines </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">on
the bar over there, in Paris</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><a href="#meter"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[4]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
– </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
of course, that distance in question is equal to itself. <a href="#meter2">[b]</a></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, the terms 'morally good', and 'great' are not </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">defined
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">in
any way in DCT</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">–
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">they
are ordinary</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">terms<a href="#great">[c]</a>,
and left undefined -, so it would be improper to answer the question
of why</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">the
only omnipotent, omniscient, maximally kind and loving being that
exists</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
is morally good – or why she is great – by bringing up a
definition of God in terms of greatness and saying that the being in
question is God. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
his reply to</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Harris<a href="#harris">[2]</a>,
Craig says</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
asking why God is good is like asking why bachelors are unmarried.
Yes, granted, as long as one keeps that definition of 'God' as 'the
greatest conceivable being', it would be like asking why bachelors
are unmarried, but on the other hand, asking why </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
good, or why </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">the
only</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">omnipotent
entity that exist, </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">or
the creator of the universe</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
– </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">specific
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">entity,
assuming she exists </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">–
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
morally good, is not at all like asking why bachelors are unmarried. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
DCT is to avoid vicious circularity, it can't rely on the 'greatest
conceivable being' definition of the word 'God' to answer questions
like the ones I asked</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">(e.
g., 'Why is </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
being </span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">morally
good?', 'Why is that being great?').</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I
don't think that Craig made any mistakes in the context with the
debate with Harris<a href="#harris">[2]</a>. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Of course, the ball has to stop somewhere, and for Craig – and for
me – it stops with God.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">But again, that
leaves us in the dark as to </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">why</span></i>
<span style="font-weight: normal">Jane is morally good. It's
uninformative. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">It is somewhat
informative. But how much information we get is an epistemic matter.
Craig's metaethical argument is an ontological metaethical argument.
The account does not need to be as informative as, say, “water is
H2O”. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">In that case, I have
another question: </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>4. </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none">What
makes it the case that Jane maximally great?</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
This is a question about truth-makers. What makes the statement 'Jane
is maximally great' true?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Remember, I stipulated that Jane is the only omnipotent, omniscient,
maximally living and kind being that exists.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Bob: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is maximally loving and kind, and those are all great-making
properties, which she has to a maximal degree. Jane also has power
and knowledge to a maximal degree – that's all great-making. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, Jane is also maximally morally good – moral goodness is
another great-making property -, and generally, Jane has all of the
great-making properties to a maximal degree.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
That's what makes it the case that Jane is maximally great: the fact
that she has all of the great-making properties to a maximal degree.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Alice: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Alright,
so here's another question: </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>5. </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none">What
makes it the case that Jane is morally good?</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><a name="__DdeLink__52_1135762541"></a>
Remember, moral goodness is a great-making property, so it can't be
that greatness is a morally good-making property. That would be
viciously circular. So, what makes it the case that the only
omnipotent, omniscient, maximally kind and loving being – i. e.,
Jane -, is also morally good?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Bob: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
is the paradigm of moral goodness. To be morally good is to resemble
Jane in some respects. And of course, Jane resembles Jane. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Alice: </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">what
makes it the case that Jane is the paradigm of moral goodness? </span></i></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<span style="font-weight: normal">Unlike the meter and the meter bar,
'moral goodness' is not </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">defined
</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal">in terms of Jane. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">It is a necessary brute
fact that Jane is the paradigm of moral goodness. The ball has to
stop somewhere. Jane is God. The ball stops with God. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Okay,
so</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">the
point remains that DCT is different from the '<a href="#oldmeter">oldmeter</a>'
identification in that we get a proper explanation as to why the
distance between the two lines on the bar<a href="#meter">[</a><a href="#meter">4]</a></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
one </span></span></span></span><a href="#oldmeter"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><u><span style="font-weight: normal">oldmeter</span></u></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
but on the other hand, DCT leaves us in the dark as to</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">why
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Jane
- the only omnipotent, omniscient, maximally good and kind entity
that exists - is the paradigm of moral goodness. It provides no
explanation whatever. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Again,
w</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">hether
the account provides us with a good amount of information – like
“Water is H2O” - is not the point. You're confusing ontology with
epistemology. The point remains that theism</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">provides
an ontological grounding in the sense that there is some being that
exists in the mind-independent world and that serves as a paradigm of
moral goodness. Without God, there would be nothing in the world that
would make moral statements like 'Agent A is morally good'</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">or
'Agent B has a moral obligation to do X' true, or at least
objectively true. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
why not? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
As I already explained, there is no burden on a non-theist to provide
an account of objective moral values or duties in terms of
informative identification. But given that you claim that there would
be no objective moral values or duties without God, then it's up to
you to show that no potential account would succeed.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">For example, <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
– </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
a character trait - may well be a complex property, involving having
such-and-such dispositions to act, feelings, etc., described without
using 'morally good' or any moral [or not clearly moral; that's a
variant] terms. Moral goodness in the sense of 'a good situation',
etc., is handled similarly, identifying it with some features of the
situation, resulting in two big disjunctions of conjunctions. And if
you want a unified account – which I'm not sure is a good idea, but
that aside -, then a disjunction of the two disjunctions can do the
job. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In fact, the view that being a morally good person is the same as
being disposed to be kind in such-and-such situations and to
such-and-such agents, being caring and loving – or disposed to be
caring and loving, etc. - in such-and-such situations, and so on –
or something along those lines -, seems intuitively plausible.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
On the other hand, the idea that to be morally good is to resemble a
certain being in certain respects is much less plausible, not to
mention the fact that we have excellent reasons – decisive ones –
to conclude that such being does not exist.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">To
be clear, I am </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">not</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">committed
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
the</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">informative
identification of moral goodness that I sketched above. I have no
problem recognizing that I do not know what the objective foundation
of moral goodness</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
(see, for example, <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/morality-and-ontological-grounding-some.html">this
post</a></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>).
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
sort of identification I just suggested is just one option. My point
is that </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">perhaps
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness is that, and </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">at
least </span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
identification is no less plausible than the identification contained
in DCT, and no less informative. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Granted,
without identifying the 'such and such', and the 'etc.', the account
I suggested</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">does
not provide a very informative account, but again, there is such
burden on my part (see, for example, <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/morality-and-ontological-grounding-some.html">this
post</a>), and moreover, the account provided by DCT is not more
informative, since it tells us that to be morally good is to resemble
God in some respects, but it does not specify what those respects
are, the extent of the resemblance, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Now, this view may have necessary brute facts, but so does DCT.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Bob: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
you think that that account of moral goodness is correct? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Alice: </b><span style="font-weight: normal">No,
as I said, I take no stance – I just claim it's more plausible than
the account provided by DCT. But you claim that there would be no
objective moral goodness without God, so you have the burden to show
that the account I suggested is false. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Bob:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
problem is that without God, there would be no </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">paradigm</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
moral goodness. Nothing would act as a measure of moral goodness.
Without a paradigm, who or what would determine</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">what
is morally good? For example, in your account, the 'such-and-such' is
not specified. But without God, who or what would determine</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">what
goes into the 'such-and-such'? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
answer is that nothing would, and moral goodness would be</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">subjective.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>Alice:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">why</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">would
a paradigm be needed in the case of moral goodness, but not in other
cases of objective properties? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Take,
for example, the case of </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">cruelty
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">(for
more details, see <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-ontological-foundation-of-objective.html">this
post</a>)</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">There
is objective cruelty. But there is no good reason to suspect that
there is a paradigm of objective cruelty – if you think otherwise,
why, and what is it? </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, why would the fact that there is objective moral goodness give us
good reasons to think that there is a paradigm of objective goodness?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
You have not provided any good reason to think that there is a
paradigm of objective moral goodness, or to think that whether there
is objective moral goodness depends on whether there is a paradigm of
objective moral goodness.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<font color="#6666ff"><b>Notes: </b></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="longerreply"></a>
[a] I posted a more thorough reply to Craig's metaethical argument
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1al-RuUEVxHk3ldQQC8o0U5ES3T7MfnmxdaKjVAl0Zzc/pub">elsewhere</a>.
Some parts of it are outdated, in the sense that I would write them
somewhat differently if I did it now, but for the most part, I would
make the same arguments today.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Still, some of the
arguments are improved and/or more thoroughly developed in the
dialogue above. I'm writing a longer post, which will address more
potential objections from a defender of Craig's argument, but I don't
know when it will be ready.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="meter2"></a>
[b] One might use a more precise definition in order to deal with
questions like 'What if the bar is heated? Does an oldmeter remains
the same?', but that is not necessary in this context. In any case,
one may just stipulate for the purposes of the example that
'oldmeter' is the distance between the lines in question even if the
bar is heated.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="great"></a>[c]
It is debatable whether there is an ordinary term 'great' precise
enough to be used in that context, but I'm granting that for the sake
of the argument.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><font color="#6666ff"><b>References:
</b></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="law"></a>[0]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-law-debate</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">[1]
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="foundation"></a>
William Lane Craig, “The Most Gruesome of Guests”, in “Is
Goodness Without God Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and
Ethics”, edited by Robert. Garcia and Nathan King.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Mark Murphy, “Theism, Atheism, and the Explanation of Moral Value”,
in “Is Goodness Without God Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism,
and Ethics”, edited by Robert. Garcia and Nathan King.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Also, Morriston
explains what Craig means by 'ontological foundation' or 'grounding'
in “God and the Ontological Foundation of Morality”, Religious
Studies (2012) 48, 15–34 f Cambridge University Press 2011</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Link: http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/DoesGodGround.html</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="harris"></a><a name="__DdeLink__41_1135762541"></a>
[2]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-foundation-of-morality-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="define"></a>
[3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defining-god</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="meter"></a>[4]
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html</span></span></span></p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-40490037395591392642015-01-28T12:18:00.000-08:002015-02-01T14:08:37.952-08:00The ontological foundation of objective cruelty<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.7.2 (Linux)">
<meta name="created" content="20150128;160431603330579">
<meta name="changed" content="20150128;171618767632982">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
a:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">I posted a much
longer reply to Craig's argument <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-reply-to-craigs-metaethical-argument.html">here</a>,
and I'm writing a long but shorter new reply in the form of a
hypothetical debate between a defender of the metaethical argument,
and a non-theist.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">But while I'm
working on that reply, I thought I'd post a few, brief objections in
much shorter posts. In this post, the objection is based on an
argument that mirrors Craig's metaethical argument: the metacruelty
argument.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">So, Craig argues:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P1:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not
exist. </span></span></span></span><a href="#law"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[0]</span></span></span></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P2:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Objective
moral values and duties do exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>C:
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">God
exists. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="metacruelty"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
parallel </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">argument
from objective cruelty </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
follows: </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Let's define 'c-god' as an essentially maximally cruel agent.
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P1.3:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
no c-god existed, then objective cruelty would not exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>P2.3:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Objective
cruelty does exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>C.3:</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">At
least one c-god does exist. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">And
so, there exists at least one essentially maximally cruel </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">agent</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">
– </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">who
would be the paradigm of cruelty. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, let's consider some questions:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>1.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">
Is cruelty, objective, in the relevant sense of 'objective', that is,
the sense in which Craig uses the word </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">'objective'
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">in
the context of his metaethical argument?</span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">Yes,
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">since
it meets Craig's conditions for objectivity. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">In
fact, o</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">ne
may mirror some of Craig's own arguments </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">on
the matter of objective morality </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">here:
</span></span></span><a href="#objective1">[1]</a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">
The Holocaust was cruel, and it would have been cruel even if the
Nazis had won the war and convinced </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">every
human person </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">that
it wasn't, after killing all dissenters, </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">brainwashing
children, etc. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, whether a person is a cruel person, or whether an action is
a cruel action, are matters of fact, not matters of taste or opinion.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">
Is cruelty just the absence of kindness, so that – </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">perhaps
– there is no</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">
ontological foundation of cruelt</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">y,
but </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">just
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">an
ontological foundation</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal">
of kindness?</span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
No, cruelty is not merely the absence of kindness.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">To
see this</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">let
A </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
B could both have no kindness whatsoever, </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">as
follows: </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">A
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">completely
indifferent to the suffering of others – or, indeed, to anything
that happens to others. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">F</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">or
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">instance</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
if A sees a man torturing and killing children for pleasure and A can
stop that </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">easily
and effortlessly</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
A feels no motivation whatsoever to do so, </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
lets it happen</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, A has no interest whatsoever in inflicting any pain
or suffering, either. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">A
might inflict pain, etc., in self-defense if needed – for example
-, but only as a means to an end – i. e., to defend himself -, not
because he cares whether someone else suffers. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">A
simply doesn't care </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">about
the suffering, happiness, etc., of other agents. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">B
has no kindness whatsoever, either. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">However,
B</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">revels
in </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">horribly
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">torturing
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">other
people</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">just
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">for
pleasure. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">B
is surely </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">extremely
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">cruel.
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">It
might be debated whether A is cruel, but even if A is cruel, surely B</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">more</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
cruel than A. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Yet,
if cruelty were merely the absence of kindness, two agents that are
equal with respect to kindness would be also equal with respect to
cruelty, </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
A and B are equal with respect to kindness – i. e., they both have
none at all -, but not equal with respect to cruelty.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Hence, it is not the case that cruelty is merely the absence of
kindness.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>3.</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
Can objective cruelty exist without God?</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">t
can </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">exist
without God </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">–
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
course I hold that </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">does,
though theists do not know that -, but </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">here
I'd like to </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">point
out that Craig himself holds that if God did not exist, rape would
not be morally wrong – he is mistaken about that -, but would still
be cruel </span></span></span></span><a href="#cruelty"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[2]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">–
he's right about that. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, the ontological foundation of cruelty – whatever that is -, is
not God, or something whose ontological foundation is God, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Given
that defenders of Craig's argument </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">often</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
demand that non-theists who reject the first premise of </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">his</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
metaethical argument explain what the ontological foundation of moral
values and duties would be if God did not exist, one may – as an
alternative or in addition to arguing </span></span></span></span><a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/morality-and-ontological-grounding-some.html">that
the demand is improper and non-theists </a><a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/morality-and-ontological-grounding-some.html"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">who
reject the first premise </span></span></span></span></a><a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/morality-and-ontological-grounding-some.html">have
no such burden</a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
– mirror the argument, and ask that theists who reject the first
premise of the </span></span></span></span><a href="#metacruelty">metacruelty
argument for the existence of a</a><a href="#metacruelty">n
essentially maximally cruel being</a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
– a c</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">-god
- explain what the ontological foundation of objective cruelty would
be, without a c-god. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">There
are some replies available to the defender of the metaethical
argument, and it's beyond the scope of this brief post to analyze
them, so here I'll just say that in my assessment, a non-theist has
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">at
least no less plausible </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">mirror
response</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">s
f</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">or
objective moral values and duties, but I just wanted to briefly raise
the issue </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">(I
will analyze a couple of potential theistic objections in the longer
reply I'm writing). </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="law"></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[0]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-law-debate</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="objective1"></a>
<span style="text-decoration: none">[1]
</span><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-19">http://w</a><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-19">ww.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-19</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><a name="cruelty"></a>
<span style="text-decoration: none">[</span><span style="text-decoration: none">2</span><span style="text-decoration: none">]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-euthyphro-dilemma-once-more</span></p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-41395551030156419442015-01-20T11:15:00.000-08:002015-01-20T11:15:07.529-08:00Morality and ontological grounding. Some comments on Craig's metaethical argument.<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.7.2 (Linux)">
<meta name="created" content="20150119;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20150120;161358204881860">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; color: #000000; line-height: 120% }
a:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" text="#000000" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">In the context of
his metaethical argument<a href="#longerreply">[a]</a>, William Lane
Craig contends that only theism can provide an ontological foundation
or grounding of morality – or of “objective moral values and
duties”.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__12_900689141"></a>
As Morriston explains<a href="#morriston">[1]</a>, when Craig talks
about “grounding” of moral values, etc., he means an
“informative” identification. That would be similar to the way in
which heat is identified with molecular motion, and water with H2O.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Yet, Craig does not
give any good reasons to suspect that lacking a plausible
non-theistic theory of informative identification would raise any
problems for non-theists, let alone establish that theism is true.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">On that note, let's
consider some other cases of informative identification:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="informative"></a>
<b>1. <i>A posteriori </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">informative
identification. Water, heat, and some other cases. </span></span></b>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Assuming the
identification of water with H2O is correct<a href="#water">[b]</a>,
that is a case of <i>a posteriori </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">identification
– as Morriston also points out. <a href="#morriston">[1]</a></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, for most of history, the identification was not known. In
fact, philosophers managed to figure that out only after the
development of the relevant physics, and of new terminology – i.
e., hydrogen atom, electron, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Without
those</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">developments,</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">the
identification would not have been discovered. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
The same applies to the case of heat and molecular motion.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
In the case of moral obligations, moral goodness, etc., no such
science has been developed.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__15_900689141"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">In
fact, moral psychology, and psychology in general, are</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">in
their</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">infancy
compared to physics, and there is no known </span></span><i>a
posteriori </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">informative
identification informed by scientific discoveries of, say, kindness,
cruelty, hatred, </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">illness,
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">etc.
<a href="#hatred">[c]</a></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Given
the previous considerations, the fact that there is no known </span></span><i>a
posteriori </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">informative
identification informed by science in the cases of moral goodness,
immorality, etc., is unsurprising. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Whether
one should expect that philosophers will eventually come up with an </span></span><i>a
posteriori </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">identification
of moral goodness, etc., informed by future science, is another
matter, but at this point, one should not expect such identification
to be forthcoming. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">So,
if the non-theist is in no position to offer one such identification,
that is not a problem for her. She has no such burden. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">What about some sort
of <i>a posteriori</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">identification
that is not informed by science? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">It's
hard to see what else such an identification might be informed by
without science, but in any case, one may point out the lack of such
</span></span><i>a posteriori</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">identification
not informed by science in the cases of water, or heat – there are
identifications informed by science -, and also in the cases of
cruelty, kindness, </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">illness</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">,
etc. <a href="#hatred">[c]</a></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__24_900689141"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Given
all of the above, the non-theist may properly say that while she does
not know of any </span></span><i>a posteriori </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">informative
identification in the cases of moral obligations, or moral goodness,
etc., she has no burden to come up with them. In fact, not having an
</span></span><i>a posteriori</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">informative
identifications is a very common occurrence, and there seems to be no
particular reason why the non-theist would have any burden to come up
with such theories</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">in
the case of moral duties, etc. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>2.
</b></span></span><i><b>A priori</b></i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>non-analytical
informative identification.<a href="#nonanalytical">[d]</a></b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><b>Greenness, k</b></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>in</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>dness,
cruelty, </b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>and
illness</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>.<a href="#hatred">[c]</a></b></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">In
the cases of water, or heat, there is no known </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">a
priori </span></i></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">non-analytical</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
identification. In the cases of cruelty, hatred, </span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">kindness,
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">greenness</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
there is no known </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">a
priori</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">non-analytical
informative identification, either, just as there is no known </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">a
posteriori </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">informative
identification. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="__DdeLink__26_900689141"></a><a name="__DdeLink__19_900689141"></a>
In fact, cases in which there is no known <i>a priori </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">non-analytical
informative identification are by far the most common. <a href="#allcases">[e]</a>
</span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">It
seems this is not just because philosophers have not attempted to
come up with that. Rather, it</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">seems
that coming up with such identifications, if possible at all, is
notoriously difficult. <a href="#allcases">[e]</a> </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">As
before, given all of the above, a</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">non-theist
may properly say that while she does not know of any </span></span><i>a
priori </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">non-analytical</span></span>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">informative
identification in the cases of moral obligations, or moral goodness,
etc., she has no particular burden to come up with one. Even if she's
a metaethicist, lacking such a theory should not put any significant
particular pressure on her. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>3. Analytical informative identification.</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">We're only left with
analytical cases. Also, in order to be <i>informative</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">,
the identification would have to be based on a non-transparent
analytical statement. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Does a non-theist have a burden to come up with an analytical
informative identification?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
There seems to be no good reason to think so.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, there seems to be no good reason to believe that there is
an identification of that sort between moral obligations, moral
goodness, etc., and properties or entities we usually describe in
terms that appear to be non-moral terms.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">As
for analytical identifications involving terms that are clearly moral
ones, such as moral obligation, immorality, etc., </span></span><i>some
</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">identifications
of that sort may not be so difficult to find. But in those cases, one
might question</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">how
informative they are. Moreover, to the extent that some
identifications of that sort are available, there seems to be no good
reason to think the non-theist would have a particular problem with
them. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>4. Is it there a possible non-theistic informative identification
of moral goodness? What about cruelty? </b>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Perhaps,
a theist might argue that given non-theism, no informative
identification </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
moral goodness (or moral obligation, etc.)</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
will ever be forthcoming , and indeed it </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
not</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
possible </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">–
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">it's
allegedly an ontological problem for the non-theism -, and that</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">that
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
the problem for the non-theist. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
no </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">good
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">reason
to think so has been given by Craig. <a href="#longerreply">[a]</a></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Moreover</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
for that matter, one might suggest that without a necessarily
existent</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">maximally
cruel agent, there can be no informative identification of cruelty,
or even that that would be an ontological problem for
non-necessary-cruel-agent-ism. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
claim that without </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">God</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
there is no moral goodness seems to be relevantly similar. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">I</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">ncidentally,
Craig holds that if God did not exist, rape would still be
cruel<a href="#cruel">[3]</a></span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="#counterpossible">[f]</a>.
But let's define C-god to be an essentially maximally cruel,
omnipotent agent. One might suggest the parallel: </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Q1.1:
If C-god did not exist, objective cruelty would not exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Q2.1:
Objective cruelty does exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">C1.1:
Therefore, C-god exists. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
the omnipotence condition is an issue, one may remove it and define a
c-god as an essentially maximally cruel agent, and then suggest the
parallel: </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Q1.2:
If no c-god existed, objective cruelty would not exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Q2.2:
Objective cruelty does exist. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">C1.2:
Therefore, at least one c-god exists. </span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Granted,
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">defenders
of Craig's metaethical argument</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
might try to get around this on different grounds, perhaps suggesting
a difference in terms of analyticity of certain statements, or
supervenience, or something like that. But the burden would be on
them.<a href="#cruelty2">[g]</a></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>5</b><b>.
Theistic accounts. </b>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It might be suggested that even though the non-theist wouldn't have
the burden to offer a theory informatively identifying moral
obligations, goodness, etc., with something described by other terms,
there is pressure because the theist has a plausible account, like –
allegedly – Craig's DCT. <br>But this is not so, either, since the
non-theist may reply that:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>5</b><b>.1.</b>
<span style="font-weight: normal">Any theistic account is committed
to the existence of God. That alone makes the account's [prior and
final] probability negligible. Of course, a theist would deny that,
but disagreement is to be expected as usual. It's beyond the scope of
this post to argue that point, but that is no particular pressure on
the non-theist.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><b>5</b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>.2.
</b></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">Any
theistic attempt to provide an informative identification will have
to include a reference to God – in one way or another – among the
properties or entities moral obligation, moral goodness, etc., are
identified with – else, it wouldn't be theistic, even if it were
logically compatible with theism. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
furthermore, given that “God” is defined in terms of </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
terms, </span></i></span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">there
will be moral properties that will not be informatively</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">identified
with anything else. But then – the non-theist might ask -, why
should one think</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">that
there is an informative identification of moral obligations, or moral
goodness? </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>5</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>.3</b></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.
As Morriston explains<a href="#morriston">[1]</a>, according to the
account defended by Craig, moral goodness is - allegedly -
informatively identified with resemblance to [some aspects of] God.
But according to Craig, God is to be understood as the “greatest
conceivable being”, and that's </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">a
definition</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">.<a href="#GCB">[</a></span></span></span></span><a href="#GCB"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">4</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><a href="#GCB2">[</a></span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="#GCB2"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">5</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><a href="#GCB3">[</a></span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="#GCB3"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">6</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none">
</span></span></span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Yet,
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness is a great-making property<a href="#GCB">[</a></span><a href="#GCB"><span style="font-weight: normal">4</span><span style="font-weight: normal">]</span></a><span style="font-weight: normal">,
so it seems that </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">greatness
</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">is
a complex property, a conjunction of moral goodness and some other
properties, apparently involving knowledge and power, and perhaps
lovingness and some other properties. So, a maximally great being
would be maximally morally good, it seems. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
moral goodness is identified with resemblance to God, and God is a
being that has some properties or traits to a maximal degree,
including power, knowledge, and </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">moral
goodness. </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">How
is that identification </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">informative?
</span></i>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If the identification is not between moral goodness and resemblance
to God, but between moral goodness and some properties of God, the
problem remains given the definition of “God”.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">There
are ways for the theist to try to get around this, </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">like
saying that the ontological grounding condition is a matter of
ontology not epistemology and allegedly it does not matter whether
it's informative – but then, why would Craig say he was talking
about informative identification? Would informative identification
not matter in the ontological sense? -, or saying that one can pick
the right entity – namely, God -, without giving a definition, but
otherwise pointing to him, etc. In my assessment, they all fail, but
in any case, the burden would be on the defender of the metaethical
argument. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
</span></span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<b>6. Conclusion.</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Craig<a href="#longerreply">[a]</a>
claim</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">s</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
– among other things - that non-theists have no grounding of moral
obligations and moral values, where “grounding” is understood in
terms of informative identification. But non-theists have no burden
to come up with such an identification at this point, and </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Craig
has</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
not provided any </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><i><span style="font-weight: normal">good</span></i></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
reason to </span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">think</span></span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">
that theists are or will ever be better equipped to come up such a
theory.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>Notes: </b>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="longerreply"></a>
[a] I posted a much more thorough reply to Craig's metaethical
argument <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-reply-to-craigs-metaethical-argument.html">in
another post</a>, and <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1al-RuUEVxHk3ldQQC8o0U5ES3T7MfnmxdaKjVAl0Zzc/pub">elsewhere</a>.
Some parts of it are outdated, in the sense that I would write them
somewhat differently if I did it now, but for the most part, I would
make the same arguments today.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="water"></a>[b]
The metaphysical claim of identify might be questioned without
challenging the science behind it, but that is not required in this
context.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="hatred"></a>
[c] It might be suggested that cruelty is merely the absence of
kindness, and that that would be relevant in this context. But it's
not the case that cruelty is merely the absence of kindness.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">For example, two
agents A and B could both have no kindness whatsoever, and yet A
could be more cruel than B. For instance, A may be completely
indifferent to the suffering of others – or, indeed, to anything
that happens to others, good or bad -, whereas B revels in torturing
others for pleasure. Neither A nor B has any kindness at all, but B
is more cruel than A. Yet, if cruelty were merely the absence of
kindness, two agents that are equal with respect to kindness would be
also equal with respect to cruelty.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">Also, it might be
suggested that cruelty is not objective in the relevant sense. But it
is. O<span style="font-weight: normal">ne may mirror Craig's
arguments on the matter.<a href="#objective">[2]</a> For example, the
Holocaust was a cruel act. And it would have been cruel even if the
Nazis had won the war and convinced everyone that it wasn't cruel,
and even if some of the Nazis themselves failed to see it was cruel. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, whether an act is cruel is a matter of fact, not a matter
of opinion or taste.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">So,
cruelty is objective in the relevant sense. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="nonanalytical"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">[d]
By “non-analytical” informative identification I mean an
informative identification between properties or entities that can't
be established on the basis of the meaning of the words that pick
those properties or entities alone, plus logic. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Conversely, by “analytical identification”, I mean one that is
not non-analytical.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="allcases"></a><a name="__DdeLink__21_900689141"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">[e]
There is no need here to address here the issues of whether there is
at least one known non-analytical, </span></span><i>a priori</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">identification,
or even whether a non-analytical, </span></span><i>a priori</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">identification
is possible. It's sufficient to point out that </span></span><i>at
least</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">,
in most cases, there is no known </span></span><i>a priori</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">,
non-analytical identification. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="counterpossible"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">[f]
Craig also holds that it's impossible that God does not exist, so I
guess he considers that “If God did not exist, rape would be cruel”
is a non-trivially true counterpossible, or something like that. But
in any case, I don't intend to object in this post to Craig's use of
what he believes are counterpossible scenarios. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="cruelty2"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">[g]
It's beyond the scope of this post to assess potential replies and
show they fail – though I hold they do fail -, but the burden </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">to
defeat the parallel </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">is,
in any case, on the defender of the metaethical argument. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><b>References: </b>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="morriston"></a>
[1] Morriston, Wesley, “God and the Ontological Foundation of
Morality”, Religious Studies (2012) 48, 15–34 f Cambridge
University Press 2011</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">link:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/DoesGodGround.html</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="objective"></a>
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">[</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">2</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">]
</span></span></span>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-19</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="cruelty"></a><a name="cruel"></a>
[3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-euthyphro-dilemma-once-more</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="GCB"></a>[4]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defining-god</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="GCB2"></a>[5]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s3-3</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><a name="GCB3"></a>[6]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/personal-god</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-90770742973049485722015-01-13T19:29:00.000-08:002015-01-14T05:50:08.725-08:00On a recent exchange with Jerry Coyne and others<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.7.2 (Linux)">
<meta name="created" content="20150113;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20150114;2920942087515">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; color: #000000; line-height: 120% }
a:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" text="#000000" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">(I usually don't
reply in this way, but Jerry Coyne's moderating methods don't leave
me any good options).
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">In a<a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/dan-dennett-misguided-about-free-will-accurate-about-templeton">
recent post</a>, Jerry Coyne made a number of claims about Dennett in
particular, and about compatibilists in general.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">I replied in the
comments thread, challenging some of his claims and asking him to
defend them.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">He didn't reply at
first, but other posters did reply, and I addressed their replies.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Eventually, Coyne
replied, but instead of addressing my points, he misconstrued one of
them - despite the fact that I had repeatedly clarified it in the
comments -, and also mistakenly accused me of replying in a rude way.
Now, my comments are not getting through, but appear "awaiting
moderation", which makes me unable to respond to the persistent
misrepresentation of my views by a few posters over there.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">So, I'd like to
reply to Coyne's comment, as well as one comment by another poster:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Jerry Coyne <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/dan-dennett-misguided-about-free-will-accurate-about-templeton/#comment-1128069">says</a>:
“I have already put up two quotes from Dennett in which he says
that it’s dangerous for people to believe that they are biochemical
puppets. Go <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/does-eroding-belief-in-free-will-cause-cheating-failure-to-replicate-a-famous-result/">here</a>
for the quotes and link. Frankly, I’m offended when you claim that
I’m just making stuff up. I expect that you will now admit you were
wrong when you said that “I can always posting a link, “if there
is one.”</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">That’s just plain rude.”</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">Reply:
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">Actually, the post of mine Coyne is
replying to was my reply to darrelle, and I did not say "I can
always posting a link, “if there is one."
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">Rather, I told darrelle "you can
always post a link (quoting Dennett) in support of it, if there is
one." I was telling darrelle that while the evidence was
strongly against her or his claim about Dennett, I was open to
counterevidence in the form of a link supporting the claim. That is
not rude in that context.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">As one can see in the rest of my
exchange with darrelle, there was no link supporting her or his
claim, and it turned out darrelle had seriously misunderstood
Dennett's views, and made a number of other mistakes. The exchange is
on record, so I don't need to add details here.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">That aside, and with regard to Coyne's
claim about Dennett's views, as I explained a couple of times in my
exchange with darrelle and others, I know Dennett holds that it would
be dangerous if a substantial portion of the population came to
believe the <i>false theory </i>that we do not have free will, no
moral responsibility, that no behavior is immoral, etc.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">On the other hand, it is not the case
that Dennett believes, or feels, that "it’s dangerous for the
public to know the truth" about determinism.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">Now, Coyne said in the OP that "In
both cases academic doyens (theologians or philosophers) feel that
it’s dangerous for the public to know the truth (about God or about
determinism).".</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">If it were true that Dennett believes
that, that still would not justify Coyne's more general claim about
compatibilist philosophers (and it's false in general too), but in
any case, it is not true that Dennett's believes that. It seems
probable that Coyne made his claim under the assumption that knowing
“the truth about determinism” was somehow equivalent to knowing
that there is no free will. But Coyne ought to clarify and more
importantly defend his claim.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">Another reply:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">darrelle <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/dan-dennett-misguided-about-free-will-accurate-about-templeton/#comment-1128081">says</a>:
“well, in your own mind”.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Reply: The "You
earlier claimed that" after "Actually, I know compatibilism
is the position that free will is compatible with determinism. It
does not entail that determinism is true. There are compatibilists
who do not take a stance on whether determinism is true." was a
copy/paste error – so, that's my bad -, but it should be clear that
it was not support to be part of the following sentence.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">At any rate, my
points in reply to darrelle stand, as one can check by looking at the
record.
</p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-16134349572670720732015-01-04T03:13:00.001-08:002016-05-10T10:52:41.279-07:00The Bible and rape: Copan's reply to Martin<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.7.2 (Linux)">
<meta name="created" content="20150104;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20150104;81245482041490">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; color: #000000; line-height: 120% }
a:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" text="#000000" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">In his article “Can
Michael Martin Be A Moral Realist?: Sic et Non"<a href="#martin">[1]</a>,
Paul Copan makes both a metaethical argument for theism <a href="#Jeffery">[2],</a>
and a defense of some biblical commands involving cases of rape.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">I reject both
arguments, but here I will address the biblical commands in question,
and Copan's interpretation – leaving aside the question of whether
Martin makes a good case based on said commands.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><font color="#006600"><b>Deuteronomy 22</b></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.79in; line-height: 150%"><font color="#006600">22:23
If there be a young lady who is a virgin pledged to be married to a
husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22:24 then
you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall
stone them to death with stones; the lady, because she didn't cry,
being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor's
wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you. 22:25 But
if the man find the lady who is pledged to be married in the field,
and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only who lay
with her shall die: 22:26 but to the lady you shall do nothing; there
is in the lady no sin worthy of death: for as when a man rises
against his neighbor, and kills him, even so is this matter; 22:27
for he found her in the field, the pledged to be married lady cried,
and there was none to save her. 22:28 If a man find a lady who is a
virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and
lie with her, and they be found; 22:29 then the man who lay with her
shall give to the lady's father fifty shekels of silver, and she
shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he may not put her
away all his days.</font></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">In his analysis of the passage – and
his reply to Martin -, Copan distinguishes the following cases:
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><b>Case a.</b> Consensual sex between a
man and a “betrothed girl”.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><span style="font-weight: normal">Copan
claims that the act is tantamount to adultery. However, that may or
may not be the case. It may well be that the woman was “pledged”
to a man </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">against her will
, </span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">and
then chose to have sex with someone else. Clearly, she would not be
at fault in that case. But if she does that, then she and the man she
has sex with are </span></span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">stoned
to death</span></i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">,
if the biblical command is followed. That is of course, morally
abhorrent. On the other hand, there is no punishment for the man who
would sell her to a rapist, or to the rapist. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">But
moreover, even if the command were applicable only to cases in which
she had agreed to the engagement – but that's not the case -, it is
not the case that she or the man she has sex with consensually
deserve to be stoned to death. Nor was it morally acceptable for
anyone to follow that command willingly, and stone them</span></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">to
death. Frankly, even in that case, the command is morally atrocious,
and the Bible is also promoting false moral beliefs – in this case,
the belief that she deserved to be stoned to death. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
A morally perfect being with the power to stop it would never command
anything remotely like that.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><b>Case b.</b> Rape of an “engaged
girl”.</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><font color="#000000">In this case, only
the rapist is punished by death, </font><font color="#000000"><i>unless
she failed to cry</i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">,
in which case she is also stoned to death. </span></font></span>In
context, it’s apparent that there is an assumption that because she
did not cry, she consented to having sex with the man in question.
However, it is also apparent that even if she did not cry, she may
well not have consented to having sex with him. Maybe the man raped
her and (for instance) had a knife on her throat, or maybe she was
terrified, she froze, etc. There are a number of possibilities.
Copan, however, claims that “because she did not call for help, it
can be assumed that she consented to the man's advances”. In other
words, he considers the fact that she did not cry to be conclusive
evidence to convict her of adultery, and enough to morally justify
<i>stoning her to death. </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">As
before, this is appalling. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Incidentally,
</span></span>even though the rapist is to be stoned to death in this
case, he's being punished not for rape (which also would be an
improper punishment, but that aside), but for <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">having
sex with a woman pledged to another man</span></span><i>. </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">This
is apparent from the facts that: </span></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">1.
He is stoned to death regardless of whether the sex with the
“pledged” woman was consensual, as indicated in </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>a.</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">above.
</span></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">2.
If the woman is </span></span><i>not</i><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">pledged
to another man, he is only fined even if he rapes her, as explained
below. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><font color="#000000"><b>Case </b></font><font color="#000000"><b>c.</b></font><font color="#000000">
Rape of an “unengaged/single girl”.</font></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><font color="#000000">In this case, the
rapist is only forced to pay a fine, and then he is forced to </font><font color="#000000"><i>marry
his victim</i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">,
so he can continue to rape her legally, and with no further
punishment, at least if her father agrees. </span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">Moreover,
if she were to escape from his husband/rapist and have sex
consensually with another man, she would be </span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i>stoned
to death for adultery</i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">.
The biblical dispositions on the matter are not just morally bad, but
appalling – as are so many other biblical commands, as I have
pointed out elsewhere<a href="#moralcase">[</a><a href="#moralcase">3]</a>.
Moreover, the Bible implies that she </span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i>deserves
</i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">that
punishment in a case like that, so it promotes absurdly false moral
beliefs. </span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
What does Copan say about that?
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">He
claims that the case under consideration is one in which a man</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">takes</span></font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000">
</font></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">advantage
of a minor with her consent, and the Bible does not give the man or
the father the choice to refuse, allegedly to protect her, because
she gets security and provision – allegedly. </span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">However,
the biblical passage is </span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i>not
</i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">limited
to cases in which she consented – never mind she may not have been
mature enough to consent, or at least to consent in a way that would make sex with her morally acceptable. </span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
This is clear both from the text, and the fact that there is no other
disposition establishing a separate punishment for someone who rapes
a woman who is single and not pledged.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">Moreover,
even if one limits this biblical command to cases in which the minor
was not forced – but it was not so limited case -, </span></font></span><font color="#000000"><i>she
may be forced later; she has no choice to reject the marriage. </i></font><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">And
when she's married, her husband is legally entitled to rape her. So,
a man takes advantage of a minor, and then she's forced to marry him,
where she gets “security and provision” against her will by a man
who can legally rape her at will. The biblical disposition remains
atrocious.</span></font></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-style: normal">Before
addressing the next part of Copan's defense of some biblical
passages, let's consider a few more passages – the comments are
from another article I wrote earlier<a href="#moralcase">[</a><a href="#moralcase">3</a><a href="#moralcase">]</a>,
but applicable here. </span></font></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><font color="#006600"><b>Numbers 31</b></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.79in; line-height: 150%"><font color="#006600">31:1
Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of
the Midianites: afterward you shall be gathered to your people. 31:3
Moses spoke to the people, saying, Arm you men from among you for the
war, that they may go against Midian, to execute Yahweh's vengeance
on Midian. 31:4 Of every tribe one thousand, throughout all the
tribes of Israel, you shall send to the war. 31:5 So there were
delivered, out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe,
twelve thousand armed for war. 31:6 Moses sent them, one thousand of
every tribe, to the war, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the
priest, to the war, with the vessels of the sanctuary and the
trumpets for the alarm in his hand. 31:7 They warred against Midian,
as Yahweh commanded Moses; and they killed every male. 31:8 They
killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain: Evi, and
Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian: Balaam
also the son of Beor they killed with the sword. 31:9 The children of
Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and
all their livestock, and all their flocks, and all their goods, they
took for a prey. 31:10 All their cities in the places in which they
lived, and all their encampments, they burnt with fire. 31:11 They
took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of man and of animal.
31:12 They brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, to
Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the
children of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by
the Jordan at Jericho.</font></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">So, those ancient Israelite troops
attacked and killed every single man, apparently regardless of
whether those men were combatants or not, whether they were too ill
or old to fight, or whether they had surrendered. They also took the
women and their children as spoils of war. In other words, they took
them as slaves as slaves, and brought them to Moses and to one of
Yahweh’s priests.</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">The soldiers surely would expect to take
women as sex slaves – their consent was not required, as usual -,
raping them repeatedly – in accordance to Yahweh’s laws.</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">What was Moses’s reaction?</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><font color="#006600"><b>Numbers 31</b></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.79in; line-height: 150%"><font color="#006600">31:13
Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the
congregation, went forth to meet them outside of the camp. 31:14
Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of
thousands and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of
the war. 31:15 Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women
alive? 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the
counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Yahweh in the matter of
Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Yahweh. 31:17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman who has known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the girls,
who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.</font></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">So, Moses was not angry because his
troops wanted to enslave children – both boys and girls -, or
because they wanted to enslave adult women, in general.</p>
<p>Instead, Moses was angry because the soldiers had kept the women
who were not virgins alive, and apparently – unless he was lying
about his motivation, but why would he? - he believed that all of the
women who were not virgin had “caused” the children of Israel to
trespass against Yahweh. Furthermore, he believed apparently that
those women deserved to be killed for that.</p>
<p>So, Moses commanded that all women who were not virgins be killed.
He further commanded that every male child be killed as well.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Moses told his men to keep the virgin girls for
themselves - implicitly for sex slavery and repeated rape in the
future - if they so choose.</p>
<p>It is not specified what he wanted his men to do with adult women
who were virgins – if there were any -, or with girls who were not
virgins because they had been raped already. Given context, it seems
all non-virgins were to be killed regardless of whether they were
adults. As for adult women, also context indicates that they were
presumed to be non-virgins – which might or might have been true,
but of course does not justify the killings in any way -, and were to
be executed. In any event, his command was immoral regardless of how
he split the girls and the women between those that were to be killed
and those that were to be enslaved and raped whenever their masters
chose.</p>
<p>So, in particular, Moses:</p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.39in">1. Falsely blamed all non-virgin women
for a plague. Of course, regardless of what some Israelite men did in
order to have sex with at most some – surely not all – of those
women, those men made their own choices, and in any case, surely
blaming those women for a plague was absurd.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.39in">2. Murdered all of the boys but kept
girls for slavery, including sex slavery and thus repeated rape.</p>
<p>Given that behavior, even independently of other events, one
should reckon – assuming the account is accurate - that Moses was a
moral monster, a mass-murderer and mass-rapist – regardless of
whether he engaged in mass rape personally, he surely was responsible
given his commands.</p>
<p>So, what was Yahweh's reaction?</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><font color="#006600"><b>Numbers 31</b></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.39in; line-height: 150%"><font color="#006600">31:25
Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 31:26 Take the sum of the prey that
was taken, both of man and of animal, you, and Eleazar the priest,
and the heads of the fathers' houses of the congregation; 31:27 and
divide the prey into two parts: between the men skilled in war, who
went out to battle, and all the congregation. 31:28 Levy a tribute to
Yahweh of the men of war who went out to battle: one soul of five
hundred, both of the persons, and of the cattle, and of the donkeys,
and of the flocks: 31:29 take it of their half, and give it to
Eleazar the priest, for Yahweh's wave offering. 31:30 Of the children
of Israel's half, you shall take one drawn out of every fifty, of the
persons, of the cattle, of the donkeys, and of the flocks, even of
all the livestock, and give them to the Levites, who perform the duty
of the tent of Yahweh</font></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">Yahweh did not punish Moses or his men,
or expressed any disapproval whatsoever, but proceeded to give
instructions as to how to divide the spoils of war, including the
people taken as slaves.</p>
<p>Even assuming for the sake of the argument that there was no human
sacrifice and Yahweh’s “wave offering” was “just” giving
some captives to the priests as slaves, the fact remains that Yahweh
instructed Moses – and, through him, many other ancient Israelite
men – to engage in mass slavery and mass rape. Yahweh is another
moral monster, like Moses.</p>
<p>So, what happened then?</p>
<p>They just proceeded to divide the spoils, after murdering the
captive women and perhaps girls who were not virgins – or who they
believed were not virgins, anyway – and the children of those who
had children. While it would have been monstrous to do that to a
single woman or to a single child, one may point out here that the
massacre was massive, as one may reckon from the description - 32000
girls and/or women were taken as slaves.</p>
<p>So, what does Copan have to say about these matters?</p>
<p>First, he says the command to kill all of the boys and non-virgin
women may “seem harsh”, but is justified because the young girls
not to be killed had not “debased themselves in the orgiastic
worship of Baal”.
</p>
<p>But Copan's claim is clearly false, because:
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.39in">1. Even if many of those being killed
were having orgies, that's of course no good reason to kill them. And
if a powerful entity claims it is and commands that they be killed,
people ought not to believe that such entity is morally good, let
alone perfect.
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.39in">2. All of the boys <i>were to be
killed as well. </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Had
they “debased themselves” too?</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.39in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal">
This is, again, appalling. Of course, even if the ancient Israelites
in question had witnessed that a powerful entity gave such command,
they should not have followed it willingly.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">Second, Copan claims that in those cases
it was permissible not to rape, but to “take a wife”, so that
they would be allegedly protected against slavery. But that simply
makes no sense – i. e., it's absurdly improbable as an
interpretation of the text.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">Let's consider the situation for a
moment: those women had just witnessed how their mothers, sisters,
brothers, etc., had been slaughtered – including non-combatants, of
course -, and then, they were taken captives.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%">The Bible clearly indicates how the
attackers were dividing those women among the victors, and how their
leaders gave instructions to do so. It's obvious that many of those
women would have <i>rejected </i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">being
taken by those men, but – again – there is no indication at all
that they were allowed to walk free and take their chances if they so
chose – no, the text is clear: they were forced, the choice was
only made by the attackers. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Also,
t</span></span>here is no indication whatsoever that consent was
required by law before they could be taken as “wives” - and
husbands were allowed to rape their wives in that society, by the
way.
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><font color="#000000">The fact is that
the Bible describes a clear-cut case of mass murder, mass slavery,
and mass rape. And it's one of </font><font color="#000000"><i>many</i></font><font color="#000000">
cases in which the Bible describes moral atrocities and yet claims
those actions were morally acceptable, good, or even obligatory. </font>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%"><br><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="martin"></a>
[1] Copan, Paul, “Can Michael Martin Be A Moral Realist?: Sic et
Non" Philosophia Christi, Series 2, 1/2 (1999): 45-72.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">A link can be found
<a href="http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/">in Copan's website</a>.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="Jeffery"></a>
[2] Jeffery Jay Lowder cites Copan's paper and replies to one of
Copan's metaethical arguments i<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/01/03/paul-copans-noseeum-argument-against-ethics-without-god/"><font face="DejaVu Serif Condensed, sans-serif">n
a post at the Secular Outpost. </font></a>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="moralcase"></a>
[3] I wrote a much longer moral case against Christianity, which can
be found <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1al-RuUEVxHk3ldQQC8o0U5ES3T7MfnmxdaKjVAl0Zzc/pub">here</a>.
</p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-69450076410455842352014-08-27T19:36:00.003-07:002014-08-27T19:39:53.044-07:00Murray's first reply to the argument from non-human suffering (minor upgrade)<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.4.2 (Linux)">
<meta name="created" content="20140218;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20140827;233914149364808">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
p { color: #000000 }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" text="#000000" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Murray’s first
suggestion as a reply to the argument from animal suffering is that
perhaps, non-human animals do not have what he calls “phenomenal
consciousness” of the pain, but only what he calls “access
consciousness”<a href="#murray1">[1]</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">On this proposal,
basically non-human animals would be in pain sometimes, but they
would not be aware that they’re in pain – something similar to
blindsight, going by Murray’s example.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">So, on this
proposal, non-human animals would experience pain, but wouldn’t
feel it – not in the sense of “feel” that would be relevant if
this understanding of pain were correct.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Craig, referring
apparently to this suggestion, says that one of Murray’s strongest
points is that (non-human) animals do not have “first person”
view of their experiences, cannot “adjoin to their experiences”
expressions asserting that one thinks or feels that something is the
case.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">I will argue that
the suggestion fails, for the following reasons:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><b>1. </b>There
seems to be no good reason to believe that what Murray calls “higher
order thought” is required to feel pain in a way that would be
morally relevant. One plausibly does not need to think ‘I am in
pain...' to actually feel the pain, it seems to me.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><b>2.</b> Leaving 1.
aside, many animals are capable of passing the mirror test, including
chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, Asian elephants, European magpies,
orcas, and bottlenose dolphins. That seems to be good evidence that
they are in fact self-aware, and if so, they would seem to meet the
requirement for higher order thought, and in particular for being
aware that they're in pain.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><b>3. </b>With
respect to language, there seems to be no good reason to think that
it’s required for self-awareness, and actually there are good
reasons to conclude it’s not. That includes both the evidence I
mentioned above in 2., and the fact that, for example, deaf humans
who develop before sign language was invented, or humans who grow in
a feral state, are self-aware even if they have no language – and
moreover, it’s clear that those humans can feel pain in the morally
relevant sense.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><b>4. </b>Craig
outlines Murray’s argument in his website<a href="#craig1">[2]</a>,
explaining that according to Murray’s suggestion, awareness that
one is in pain – what Murray calls “level 3” awareness – is
associated with a neural pathway that only appears late in
evolutionary history, and is only present in humans and (other) great
apes. Moreover, he claims that the classification and the claim about
the pathways are based on neurological research.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">However, <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">there
is no research suggesting that other animals that pass the mirror
test – for example – would not have awareness of being in pain
just because their brains do things differently from the brains of
humans. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Moreover,
even if some pathway is a recent development in evolutionary terms,
and it’s present not only in humans, but also in chimpanzees,
bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, one may reckon that it was present
also in Homo Habilis and australopithecines as well. But if
australopithecines, etc., experienced pain in the relevant way,
that’s</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"> </span><i>millions
of years of entities sufferin</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">g.
That’s surely more than enough to run an argument from suffering; a
far shorter period would suffice too. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, it might be suggested that even if the pathway is required for
being aware that one is in pain, it’s not sufficient, and
furthermore, that perhaps chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, Homo
Habilis, australopithecines, etc., are/were not aware of being in
pain, even if they have/had the pathway. <br>However, in that case
<i>the objection to the argument from suffering is obviously not
based on any research, or any knowledge of the brain. It’s just
skepticism about the mental states of other animals, regardless of
what kind of brains they have. </i>And it’s quite implausible at
that, given the fact that other non-human animals seem to react to
pain like humans do. On that note:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>5.</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal">
</span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Let’s
consider a present-day human, say Alice, who feels pain normally. So,
she can be in pain, and be aware that she’s in pain. Let’s now
consider her mother, then her grandmother, and so on, up till the
time of our most recent common ancestor with chimpanzee (CHLCA),
about 5-8 million years ago.<a href="#chimps">[3]</a></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
In that scenario, if their experiences of pain had changed
considerably from one of the mothers to her daughter, then we would
expect also a significant shift in the way they react to pain, but
given the similarity between the reactions to pain by chimpanzees and
humans, and given that the brains of the mother and the daughter
would be extremely similar, that appears to be <i>very</i>
implausible – i. e., one should give it a negligible probability.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, a reply to the argument from suffering – Murray’s “response
1” or any other – that distinguishes between humans and non-human
animals and suggests that the pain of the latter is not morally
significant, runs into this problem of gradual changes in brains, and
gradual changes in behavior.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
More precisely, we have the following alternatives:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>5.a. </b>There is a situation in our evolutionary past after CHLCA
in which the pain of a daughter is as morally significant as the pain
of humans, but the pain of her mother is morally irrelevant, even if
their brains are almost the same, and their behavior in reaction to
pain is also essentially the same.
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>5.b. </b><span style="font-weight: normal">That is not the case,
and the pain of the mother is morally relevant, but the pain of the
mother is still much less morally relevant than that of the daughter.
</span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>5.c.
</b></span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">Changes
in moral significance</span></span></span><a href="#significance"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">
</span></span></a><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal">of
the pain from mother to daughter are always gradual. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<br><b>5.a.</b> is untenable. Why would the mother’s pain not be
morally relevant, if everything – from behavior to brain –
indicates she experienced pain in the same or almost exactly the same
way as her daughter did?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Granted, someone
might suggest that appearances may be deceiving, but for that matter,
someone might suggest that people who lived before writing didn't
experience morally significant pain, or that fossils, etc., were
planted, and Yahweh created the Earth with apparent age. Such
<span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">suggestions
are not contradictory, but they should be given a negligible
probability. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
On the other hand, <b>5.c.</b> <span style="font-weight: normal">is
lethal for any response to the argument from suffering that attempts
to deny the moral significance of the pain of non-human animals,
since there is pain that is not as morally significant<a href="#significance">[4]</a>
as that of humans – so, it’s not the pain of humans -, but it’s
still morally significant. Moreover, it’s morally significant in
increasing degrees as we approach the present, so there is pain in
non-human animals that is very significant, morally – almost as
much as that of humans. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-weight: normal">As for </span><b>5.b.</b><span style="font-weight: normal">,
it’s also untenable, and for essentially the same reasons as </span><b>5.a</b><span style="font-weight: normal">,
even if those reasons are present to a somewhat lesser degree. Why
would the mother’s pain be much less significant morally, if
everything – from behavior to brain – indicates she experienced
pain in the same or almost exactly the same way as her daughter did? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-weight: normal">Additionally, </span><b>5.b.</b>
<span style="font-weight: normal">has the problem that on </span><b>5.b</b><span style="font-weight: normal">,
there is </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">also</span></i>
<span style="font-weight: normal">morally significant pain in
non-human animals, even if not to the same extent as in </span><b>5.c</b><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="murray1"></a>
[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-pain-re-visited</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="craig1"></a>
[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-suffering</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="chimps"></a>
[3]
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="significance"></a>
[4] I'm using the expressions “morally relevant” and “morally
significant” as synonyms.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-4142534193540626562014-02-18T20:54:00.001-08:002014-02-19T07:08:10.271-08:00Murray's first reply to the argument from non-human suffering<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.0.4 (Windows)">
<meta name="created" content="20140218;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20140219;15240000000000">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
p { color: #000000 }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" text="#000000" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Murray’s first
suggestion as a reply to the argument from animal suffering is that
perhaps, non-human animals do not have what he calls “phenomenal
consciousness” of the pain, but only what he calls “access
consciousness”<a href="#murray1">[1]</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">On this proposal,
basically non-human animals would be in pain sometimes, but they
would not be aware that they’re in pain – something
similar to blindsight, going by Murray’s example.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">So, on this
proposal, non-human animals would experience pain, but wouldn’t
feel it – not in the sense of “feel” that would be
relevant if this understanding of pain were correct.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Craig, referring
apparently to this suggestion, says that one of Murray’s
strongest points is that (non-human) animals do not have “first
person” view of their experiences, cannot “adjoin to
their experiences” expressions asserting that one thinks or
feels that something is the case.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">I will argue that
the suggestion fails, for the following reasons:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><b>1. </b>There
seems to be no good reason to believe that what Murray calls “higher
order thought” is required to feel pain in a way that would be
morally relevant. One plausibly does not need to think ‘I am in
pain...' to actually feel the pain, it seems to me.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><b>2.</b> Leaving 1.
aside, many animals are capable of passing the mirror test, including
chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, Asian elephants, European magpies,
orcas, and bottlenose dolphins. That seems to be good evidence that
they are in fact self-aware, and if so, they would seem to meet the
requirement for higher order thought, and in particular for being
aware that they're in pain.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><b>3. </b>With
respect to language, there seems to be no good reason to think that
it’s required for self-awareness, and actually there are good
reasons to conclude it’s not. That includes both the evidence I
mentioned above in 2., and the fact that, for example, deaf humans
who develop before sign language was invented, or humans who grow in
a feral state, are self-aware even if they have no language –
and moreover, it’s clear that those humans can feel pain in the
morally relevant sense.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><b>4. </b>Craig
outlines Murray’s argument in his website<a href="#craig1">[2]</a>,
explaining that according to Murray’s suggestion, awareness
that one is in pain – what Murray calls “level 3”
awareness – is associated with a neural pathway that only
appears late in evolutionary history, and is only present in humans
and (other) great apes. Moreover, he claims that the classification
and the claim about the pathways are based on neurological research.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">However, <span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">there
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">is
no research suggesting that </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">other
animals that pass the mirror test – for example – would
not have awareness of being in pain just because their brains do
things differently from the brains of humans. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Moreover,
even if </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">some
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">pathway
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">i</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">s
a recent development in evolutionary terms, </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">and
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">it’s
present not only in humans, but also in chimpanzees, bonobos,
gorillas, and orangutans, </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">one
may reckon that it was present also in </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">Homo
Habilis and australopithecines as well. But </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">if
australopithecines, etc., experienced pain in the relevant way,
that’s</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">
</span></span><i>millions of years of </i><i>entities s</i><i>ufferin</i><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">g</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">.
That’s </span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">surely
</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">more
than enough to run an argument from suffering</span></span><span style="font-variant: normal"><span style="font-style: normal">;
a far shorter period would suffice too. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, it might be suggested that even if the pathway is required for
being aware that one is in pain, it’s not sufficient, and
furthermore, that perhaps chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, Homo
Habilis, australopithecines, etc., are/were not aware of being in
pain, even if they have/had the pathway. <br>However, in that case
<i>the objection to the argument from suffering is obviously not
based on any research, </i><i>or any knowledge of the brain</i><i>.
It’s just skepticism about the mental states of other animals,
</i><i>regardless of what kind of brains they have</i><i>. </i>And
it’s quite implausible at that, given the fact that other
non-human animals seem to react to pain like humans do. On that note:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>5.</b> Let’s consider a present-day human, say Alice, who
feels pain normally. So, she can be in pain, and be aware that she’s
in pain. Let’s now consider her mother, then her grandmother,
and so on, up till the time of our most recent common ancestor with
chimpanzee (CHLCA), about 5-8 million years ago.<a href="#chimps">[3]</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
In that scenario, if their experiences of pain had changed
significantly from one of the mothers to her daughter, then we would
expect also a significant shift in the way they react to pain, but
given the similarity between the reactions to pain by chimpanzees and
humans, and given that the brains of the mother and the daughter
would be extremely similar, that appears to be <i>very</i>
implausible.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, a reply to the argument from suffering – Murray’s
“response 1” or any other – that distinguishes
between humans and non-human animals and suggests that the pain of
the latter is not morally significant, runs into this problem of
gradual changes in brains, and gradual changes in behavior.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
More precisely, we have the following alternatives:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>5.a. </b>There is a situation in our evolutionary past after CHLCA
in which the pain of a daughter is as morally significant as the pain
of humans, but the pain of her mother is morally irrelevant, even if
their brains are almost the same, and their behavior in reaction to
pain is also essentially the same.
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>5.b. </b><span style="font-weight: normal">That is not the case,
but the pain of the mother is much less relevant than that of the
daughter, who is as relevant as that of any human. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<b>5.c. </b><span style="font-weight: normal">Changes in moral
significance of the pain from mother to daughter are always gradual. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<br><b>5.a.</b> is also untenable. Why would the mother’s pain
not be significant, if everything – from behavior to brain –
indicates she experienced pain in the same or almost exactly the same
way as her daughter did, and the pain of the daughter was as morally
significant as that of any of us?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
On the other hand, <b>5.c.</b><span style="font-weight: normal"> is
lethal for any response to the argument from suffering that attempts
to deny the moral significance of the pain of non-human animals,
since there is pain that is not as significant as that of humans –
so, it’s not the pain of humans -, but it’s still
significant. Moreover, it’s significant in increasing degrees
as we approach the present, so there is very significant pain in
non-human animals. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-weight: normal">As for </span><b>5.b.</b><span style="font-weight: normal">,
it’s also untenable, and for essentially the same reasons as
</span><b>5.a</b><span style="font-weight: normal">, even if those
reasons are present to a somewhat lesser degree. Why would the
mother’s pain be much less significant morally, if everything –
from behavior to brain – indicates she experienced pain in the
same or almost exactly the same way as her daughter did, and the pain
of the daughter was as morally significant as that of any of us? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<span style="font-weight: normal">Additionally, </span><b>5.b.</b><span style="font-weight: normal">
has the problem that on </span><b>5.b</b><span style="font-weight: normal">,
there is </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal">also</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal">
morally significant pain in non-human animals, even if not to the
same extent as in </span><b>5.c</b><span style="font-weight: normal">.
</span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="murray1"></a>
[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-pain-re-visited</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="craig1"></a>
[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-suffering</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="chimps"></a>
[3]
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-76309732092566520722014-02-18T16:07:00.001-08:002014-02-18T20:54:07.131-08:00Murray's second reply to the argument from non-human suffering<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.0.4 (Windows)">
<meta name="created" content="20140218;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20140218;210707671000000">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Murray’s
“response 2” to the issue of animal suffering is the
suggestion that the pain of non-human animals is like what Murray
calls “lobotomy” pain. <a href="#murray1">[1]</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">More precisely, on
this account, non-human animals do feel pain, but the pain is not
undesirable, in the sense that it would not have a “negative
mental valence”.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Murray suggests that
the distinction is based on the human prefrontal cortex (PFC) which
he claims – citing research published in “Trends in
Cognitive Science” - is “absolutely, obviously, and
tremendously” different from the PFC of any other animals, and
claims that those differences are destroyed in a lobotomy, so that if
that’s what makes pain that is felt negatively possible,
non-human animals do not feel pain negatively.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">The article he cites
actually compares the PFC of humans with that of chimpanzees<a href="#riling">[2]</a>,
so in particular it would apply to chimpanzees.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">The suggestion
fails, for at least the following reasons:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="a"></a><b>a.
</b>It’s clear that chimpanzees do feel pain negatively. If
they didn’t and they experienced pain like Murray’s
lobotomy patients, then they would not react to pain like normal
humans do, i.e., with a strong aversion. In fact, if they felt pain
but did not care about it, they would usually feel no motivation to
avoid it, and wouldn’t cry, fight or run away when exposed to
it.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">The same goes for
bonobos, orangutans, gorillas, their ancestors for millions of years,
as well as several species of australopithecines, Homo Habilis, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">In fact, this
proposal leads to an absurd idea that chimpanzees,
australopithecines, etc., are either pretending to find pain
undesirable, or alternatively, their minds are trapped in P-zombie
bodies that act as if they found pain undesirable – since,
again, their expressions, screams and general behavior expresses what
obviously appear to be emotions associated with unpleasant –
sometimes, horribly negative – feelings.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Now, someone might
suggest that chimpanzees, gorillas, australopithecines, etc., do not
experience anything at all, taking a Cartesian stance. I do not think
this is tenable, but in any case, it would not be Murray’s
response 2, which holds that they do feel pain, but do not experience
it in a negative fashion.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">The points above
suffice to conclude Murray’s response 2, and I think but I
would like to add a couple more points, just to highlight some of the
absurdities.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><b>b.</b> Murray
claims that the human PFC is “absolutely, obviously, and
tremendously” different from the PFC of any other animals.
However, even if that’s the case of <i>extant </i><span style="font-style: normal">animals,
the fact is that there is a chain from PFC very different from those
of humans to human PFC through </span><i>gradual </i><span style="font-style: normal">changes,
from parents to their offspring. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">Now,
Murray does not define “human”, and the word is not
precise enough, in my assessment, for arguments involving a “first
human”, i.e., it does not make a sharp distinction between two
categories of humans and non-humans, but a fuzzy one – as usual
with our language. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">However,
if a theistic reply to the problem of suffering distinguishes between
the suffering of humans and the suffering of non-human animals (even
if to deny the latter), it seems to me it’s implicitly assumed
that there are no actual past individuals such that the categories of
human and non-human are not precise enough to classify them, because
otherwise what would the reply say about them? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">So,
I will assume that there is such precision for the sake of the
argument. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">Also,
I will use numbers to simplify the matter, but being able to give a
numerical value on some scale to the negative value of pain is not
required. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">So,
of our subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens (HSS) finds pain negative,
though how negative the pain is depends on the intensity of the
noxious stimuli, type of pain, and the individual. But still, let’s
say that PHSS is a rough average for how HSS individuals negatively
feel pain, which varies of course with the stimuli. So, Pain(HSS, x)
would have some negative value, for each noxious stimuli x that can
be experienced by HSS. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">On
response 2, in the case of our most recent common ancestor with
chimpanzees (CHLCA), there is no negative experience – else,
response 2 fails, since we can run the problem of suffering on the
suffering of CHLCA -, and so, Pain(CHLCA, x) = 0 for all x that can
be experienced by CHLCA. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">For
example, if Pain(HSS, placing a hand in a fire)=-1000, we get
Pain(CHLCA, placing a hand in a fire)=0, where we may consider the
conditions for placing the hand to be specified. There are also
individual functions, like P(Bob, placing a hand in a fire)=-1013,
etc. (Bob is human). </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">That’s
absurd of course, since our ancestor would not have avoided fire in
that case, and would not have avoided pain in general, which
obviously is not true. But that’s point <a href="#a">a</a>.;
let’s now consider the period – which lasts from 5 to 8
million years<a href="#chlca">[3]</a> – from the CHLCA to the
present day. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">We
may consider two options. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>b.i.</b></span><span style="font-style: normal">
Jump from 0 to Pain(HSS, x) in one generation. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal"><b>b.ii.
</b></span><span style="font-style: normal">Gradual change. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal"><br></span><span style="font-style: normal"><b>b.i.
</b></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">Then,
there is a mother (say, Alice), and her daughter Mary <a href="#son">[4]</a>,
such that Mary experiences pain negatively (roughly) like we do,
whereas Alice does not find pain undesirable at all. So, here we have
an extremely similar PFC, pretty much the same behavior in reaction
to pain, etc., they both cry, recoil, avoid pain, etc., but only Mary
finds it negative. Alice feels indifferent. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">Of
course, if Alice’s hand were to be put on fire, she would
desperately cry, show the signs of suffering that we would see in
humans, like her daughter Mary – who is human, otherwise she
would not feel pain negatively on response 2. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">But
Alice does not mind at all. It looks like Alice is trapped in a
zombie body that behaves in a way that is not at all linked to
Alice’s actual feelings. The absurdities should be apparent in
this case. For that matter, we might as well suggest that our
grandparents were zombies.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><b><span style="font-style: normal">b.ii.
</span></b>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">We
have that Pain (CHLCA, placing a hand in a fire)=0. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">On
the other hand, Pain (HSS, placing a hand in a fire)=-1000. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">How
about, say, Homo Habilis (HH)? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">If,
say, Pain(Homo Habilis, placing a hand in a fire)<-500, then they
felt that pain at least half as negatively as we do, on average. But
then, placing a hand in a fire feels </span><i>horrible</i><span style="font-style: normal">,
and half as negative as that is still </span><i>very negative</i><span style="font-style: normal">.
So, if the value is between -1000 and -500, then we may run an
argument from suffering based on H. Habilis, and Murray’s
response 2 fails because of that. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">Similarly,
we may consider other kinds of horrible pain, like being literally
torn apart by a clan of hyena while still alive, or things like that,
and run an argument based on H. Habilis if they felt at least half as
bad as we do. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">At
this point, it might be argued that Homo Habilis were human in the
sense in which Murray uses “human”, so response 2 does
not apply to them. But in that case, we may run a problem of
suffering based on H. Habilis, anyway. What’s the defense? It’s
not response 2, so someone might try the Fall of humans. But the Fall
of Homo Habilis? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">But
moreover, if Homo Habilis did not find pain half as horrible as we do
in any cases of great pain, one would have expected that they would
have been somewhat less averse to it. But how or why their reaction
to pain diminished like that, from the time of CHLCA? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">What
if they did not find pain so unpleasant? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">We
can still run the argument with, say, -300, or -200, or even -100,
etc., (that </span><i>still</i><span style="font-style: normal">
would require a response, given that the theist posits that God is
running the world), or alternatively ask: how about Homo Erectus? </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">If
a theist holds that maybe Homo Erectus was human and the Fall
explains it, then let's consider the mother of the first primate who,
say, Fell. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><span style="font-style: normal">From
a slightly different perspective, let’s consider a present-day
person, Alice, then her mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, etc.,
and the same for other people. The result would be either humans who
do not find pain negative (but then, why would they avoid it so
eagerly? Are they trapped in P-zombie bodies?), or alternatively,
non-humans who find pain negative (then, response 2 fails because of
that, since we may run an argument from suffering on their
suffering). </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="murray1"></a>
[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-pain-re-visited</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="riling"></a>
[2]
https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613%2813%2900217-9?script=true</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="chlca"></a>[3]
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><a name="son"></a>[4]
O<span style="font-style: normal">r a son, father, etc.; it makes no
difference to the argument. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-42309399232002680312014-02-18T14:00:00.001-08:002014-08-27T19:41:43.542-07:00On Craig, Murray, and suffering<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.0.4 (Windows)">
<meta name="created" content="20140218;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20140219;121433640000000">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { color: #000000 }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-US" text="#000000" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">On his website<a href="#craigwebsite">[1]</a>,
William Lane Craig pointed to some of Michael Murray’s
arguments as potential replies to the argument from suffering, at
least when it comes to the pain of non-human animals.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">I’m planning
to write a couple of brief posts commenting on some of Craig’s
and Murray’s arguments, as outlined on Craig’s website
<a href="#craigwebsite">[1]</a>, and raise objections to at least <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-pain-re-visited">two
of Murray’s suggested replies</a> <a href="#murray2">[2] </a>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">The first
suggestion<a href="#clear">[3]</a> – which Murray calls
“response 1”; I will use the same terminology – is
that perhaps non-human animals do not have what Murray calls
“phenomenal consciousness” of the pain, but only what he
calls “access consciousness”.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">On this proposal,
basically non-human animals would be in pain sometimes, but they
would not be aware that they’re in pain – something
similar to blindsight, going by Murray’s example.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">So, on this
proposal, non-human animals would experience pain, but wouldn’t
feel it – not in the sense of “feel” that would be
relevant if this understanding of pain were correct.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">The second
suggestion<a href="#clear">[3]</a> – “response 2” -
is that animal pain is like what Murray calls “lobotomy pain”;
that pain would be felt, but wouldn’t be undesirable, in other
words, the pain in question would not have a “negative mental
valence to it”, in Murray’s words.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">To be clear, Murray
does not claim that non-human animal pain is actually like that, but
rather, he claims we do not know it’s not.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">ETA: The reply to
Murray’s response 1 is <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/murrays-first-reply-to-argument-from.html">here</a>,
and the reply to Murray’s response 2 is <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/murrays-response-2-on-argument-from.html">here</a>.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><a name="craigwebsite"></a>
[1]
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s9-21">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s9-21</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s9-191">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s9-191</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/natures-flaws-and-cruelties">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/natures-flaws-and-cruelties</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s9-191">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s9-191</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-suffering">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-suffering</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-pain-and-the-ethical-treatment-of-animalshttp://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-suffering1</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-pain-re-visited">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-pain-re-visited</a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><a name="murray2"></a>
[2]http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-pain-re-visited</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><a name="clear"></a>[3]
To be clear, Murray does not claim that non-human animal pain is
actually like that, but rather, he claims we do not know it’s
not.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-44147158715810586632013-06-07T05:12:00.002-07:002014-03-05T19:16:53.107-08:00A Reply to Craig's Metaethical Argument (aka Craig's "Moral Argument") II (v. 7.4)<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="OpenOffice.org 3.2 (Linux)">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20130530;17091000">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20140306;71900">
<META NAME="SDENDNOTE" CONTENT="ARABIC">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; direction: ltr; color: #000000; widows: 2; orphans: 2 }
P.western { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; so-language: en-US }
P.cjk { font-family: "Dingbats"; font-size: 12pt }
P.ctl { font-family: "Tahoma"; font-size: 12pt }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" TEXT="#000000" DIR="LTR">
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT SIZE=4 STYLE="font-size: 15pt"><B>A </B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT SIZE=4 STYLE="font-size: 15pt"><B>Reply
to William Lane Craig’s Metaethical Argument (aka </B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT SIZE=4 STYLE="font-size: 15pt"><B>Craig’s</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT SIZE=4 STYLE="font-size: 15pt"><B>
</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT SIZE=4 STYLE="font-size: 15pt"><B>“Moral
Argument”)</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT SIZE=4 STYLE="font-size: 15pt"><B>.</B></FONT></FONT><B>
</B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><A HREF="#intro"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>1.
Introduction.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><A HREF="#objective"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>2.
Objectivity.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#objectivestatements"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>2.</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#objectivestatements"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>1.</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#objectivestatements"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>
Objective statement</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#objectivestatements"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>s</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#objectivestatements"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>
or </U></FONT></A><A HREF="#objectivestatements"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>judgments,
and </U></FONT></A><A HREF="#objectivestatements"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>objective
</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#objectivestatements"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>matters</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#objectivestatements"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#objectivevalues1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>2.2.
Objective moral values and duties.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#objectivedependent"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>2.3.
</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#objectivedependent"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>O</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#objectivedependent"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>bjectivity
and mind-depend</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#objectivedependent"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>ence.
Objective pain and objective fear.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#necessity"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>2.4. </U></FONT></A><A HREF="#necessity"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>Objectivity
and necessity.</U></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U> </U></FONT></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>3</U></FONT><A HREF="#traditional"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.
A traditional view on moral values and </U></FONT></A><A HREF="#traditional"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>moral
</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#traditional"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>duties?</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>4</U></FONT><A HREF="#natural"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.
</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#natural"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>Naturalism,
moral values </U></FONT></A><A HREF="#natural"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>and
duties</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#natural"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>,
pai</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#natural"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>n and
fear</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#natural"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>. </U></FONT></A></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>5</U></FONT><A HREF="#determined"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.
Morality and determinism.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>6</U></FONT><A HREF="#color"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.
Color, exobiology and genetic engineering.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>7</U></FONT><A HREF="#beauty"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.
Beauty, exobiolog</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#beauty"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>y,
</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#beauty"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>and
</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#beauty"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>Neanderthals</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#beauty"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>8</U></FONT><A HREF="#beauty2"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.
Craig on beauty and evolutio</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#beauty2"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>n.
More extraterrestrials, and more Neanderthals</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#beauty2"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.
</U></FONT></A></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>9</U></FONT><A HREF="#morality0"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.
Morality, evolution, and evolutionary counterfactuals.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><A HREF="#morality"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>1</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#morality"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>0</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#morality"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.
Morality and exobiology I.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><A HREF="#objection"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>1</U></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>1</U></FONT><A HREF="#objection"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.
Morality and exobiology II. Some objections.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><A HREF="#twinearth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>1</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#twinearth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>2</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#twinearth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.
Morality and exobiology III. Moral Twin Earth.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><B><A HREF="#onto1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>13.
Ontological foundation</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#onto1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>
or grounding</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#onto1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#foundations1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>1</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#foundations1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>3</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#foundations1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#foundations1"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">1</FONT></A><A HREF="#foundations1">.</A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#foundations1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>Craig's
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#foundations1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>foundational
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#foundations1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>conditions.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#craignoexplain"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>1</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#craignoexplain"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>3.2.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></B><A HREF="#craignoexplain"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><B><A HREF="#craignoexplain"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>Craig's
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#craignoexplain"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>theistic</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#craignoexplain"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#craignoexplain"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>foundational
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#craignoexplain"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>accoun</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#craignoexplain"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>t,
and Craig's first premise</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#craignoexplain"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#craignoexplain"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#duplicateminds"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>13.2.1.
Duplicate minds. </U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#informativeidentification"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>13.2.2.
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#informativeidentification"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>Informative
identificatio</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#informativeidentification"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>n
accounts and conceptual problems</U></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#goodnessnogod"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>13.2.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#goodnessnogod"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>2</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#goodnessnogod"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#goodnessnogod"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>1.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#goodnessnogod"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#goodnessnogod"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>Goodness
without God.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#noh2o"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>13.2.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>2</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#noh2o"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#noh2o"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>2.
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#noh2o"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>W</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#noh2o"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>ater</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#noh2o"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>
without H2O?</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#circularity"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>13.2.3.
Circularity.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#ontologicalfoundation"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>13.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#ontologicalfoundation"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>3</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#ontologicalfoundation"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.
Shoul</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#ontologicalfoundation"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>d
we expect that objective moral values and/or duties have an
ontological foundation</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#ontologicalfoundation"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>,
in the sense of informative identification</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#ontologicalfoundation"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>?</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#heat2"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>13.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#heat2"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>4</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#heat2"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.
H</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#heat2"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>eat
and </B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>Craig’s</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#heat2"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
foundational conditions</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#heat2"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#heat2"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#watercraig"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>13.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#watercraig"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>5</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#watercraig"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.
W</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#watercraig"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>ater
and </B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#watercraig"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>Craig’s</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#watercraig"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#watercraig"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>foundational
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#watercraig"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>conditions.
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#birdhealth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>13.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#birdhealth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>6</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#birdhealth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.
S</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#birdhealth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>ick
birds and </B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#birdhealth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>Craig’s</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#birdhealth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#birdhealth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>foundatio</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>n</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#birdhealth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>al
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#birdhealth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>conditions.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#colorcondition"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>13.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#colorcondition"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>7</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#colorcondition"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.
G</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#colorcondition"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>reen
stuff</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#colorcondition"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
and </B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#colorcondition"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>Craig’s</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#colorcondition"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#colorcondition"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>foundational
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#colorcondition"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>conditions.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#kindness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>13.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#kindness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>8</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#kindness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#kindness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>O</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#kindness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>bjective
kindness and </B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#kindness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>Craig’s</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#kindness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#kindness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>foundational
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#kindness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>conditions.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#cruelty"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>13.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#cruelty"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#cruelty"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.
Objective cruelty and </B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#cruelty"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>Craig’s</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#cruelty"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#cruelty"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>foundational
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#cruelty"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>conditions.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#greatness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>13.10.
Objective greatness.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#valued"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>13.1</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#valued"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>1</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#valued"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.
Valued properties?</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#normativity"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>13.1</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#normativity"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#normativity"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.
Normativity. </B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#burden"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>1</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#burden"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>3.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#burden"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>1</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>3</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#burden"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#burden"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>Non-theism</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#burden"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>,
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#burden"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>ontological
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#burden"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>foundation</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#burden"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>s</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#burden"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>,
</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#burden"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>and
burden.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#self"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>14.
E</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#self"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>volution
and self</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#self"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>-sacrifice,
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#self"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>and
generally human behavior.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#commands"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>15.
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#commands"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>Moral
obligations</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#commands"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>,
legal obligations</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#commands"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
and commands.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#prudential"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>16. </U></FONT></A><A HREF="#prudential"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>Prudential
reasons vs. moral reasons?</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#account"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>17. </U></FONT></A><A HREF="#account"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>Accountability.
</U></FONT></A></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><A HREF="#conclusion"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>18. </U></FONT></A><A HREF="#conclusion"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>Conclusio</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#conclusion"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>ns</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#conclusion"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U>.</U></FONT></A></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="intro"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>1. Introduction. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">In
this article, I will raise a number of objections to his Craig’s
metaethical argument (aka “Moral Argument”), arguing that
he’s failed to establish or provide good reasons to think that
the first premise is true.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="formal"></A>
The formal argument is:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
P1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do
not exit.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
C: God exists.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Additionally,
I will briefly address other arguments he makes usually in the same
context as the metaethical argument, like an argument from moral
accountability.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Before
I go on, I’d like to point out that I do not claim originality.
In fact, I took most of the ideas in this article from a number of
different, often multiple, sources. <A HREF="#bomb">[0]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objective"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Objec</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>tivity.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In his defense of a metaethical argument, Craig says that a something
is objective if it does not depend on anyone’s opinions, and
it’s subjective if it does. <A HREF="#r1">[r1]</A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, that raises some questions, like:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>a. </B>What kind of ‘something’ counts?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Are we talking about objective judgments, or statements? Facts?
Something else?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
doesn’t say, but i</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
his defense of the metaethical argument, Craig talks about objective
values and duties</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
well as objective truth</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r1">[r1]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
implicitly about objective statements and/or propositions when he
talks about what “holds true”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r2">[r2]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
independently of what people believe. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
a different article</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
defending the metaethical argument but </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">clearly
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">referring
to i</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t
-</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
also talks about objective facts. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r3"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r3"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">3</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r3">]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#objectivenote1">[1</A><A HREF="#objectivenote1">]</A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>b.</B> What kind of 'dependence' is relevant?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">rest
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
this</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
section, I will </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">analyze
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
matter of objectivity in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
context of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig's
metaethical argument</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objectivestatements"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>2.
Objective state</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>ment</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>s</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>
or </B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>judgments,
and</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>
objective matters.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">’s
consider </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
examples</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of statements or judgments</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#judgement"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[2]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
S1: All combustible materials contain phlogiston.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
S2: Santa Claus exists, and flies in a sleigh.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
S3: Richard Dawkins believes that Yahweh exists.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Using the word ‘objective’ and other words in those
statements in an ordinary sense, it’s clear to me that there is
an objective fact of the matter as to whether S1 is true, there is an
objective fact of the matter as to whether S2 is true, and there is
an objective fact of the matter as to whether S3 is true. They’re
all false.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In that ordinary sense of ‘objective’, I would also say
that whether combustible materials contain phlogiston is an objective
matter, so is the matter(s) of whether Santa Claus exists and flies
in a sleigh, and so is the matter of whether Richard Dawkins believes
that Yahweh exists.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
As for Craig’s use of ‘objective’, whether all
combustible materials contain phlogiston, whether Santa Claus exists,
etc., are matters that do not depend on anyone’s opinion, so
those matters and the corresponding statements seems to meet Craig’s
requirement for objectivity as well.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
What about S3?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Is S3 objective, in the sense of the term ‘objective’
used in Craig’s metaethical argument?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<I>In a sense</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">whether
S3 is true </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">depends on </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">one
of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Dawkins’ beliefs –</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
namely, whether he believes that Yahweh exists. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However, that is </SPAN><I>not </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
relevant </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">kind</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
of depend</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">e</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">nce</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
when it comes to ascertaining whether a statement, a matter, etc., is
objective, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in the sense in
which Craig uses the word ‘objective’ in the context of
the metaethical argument. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
were </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the relevant kind of
dependence</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">i</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">t’s
clear that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">moral judgments
would often not be objective in the sense of ‘objective’
used in Craig’s metaethical argument, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">since – for instance –
we </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
set up scenarios in which, say, whether Bob has a moral obligation to
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">refrain from putting some of
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the white substance </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">sugar
bowl</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
is on </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the table </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">–</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">which is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
fact </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">sugar – in his
father’s coffee does depend on facts such as whether, say, Bob
</SPAN><I>believes</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
the substance in question is </SPAN><I>poison</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But there is no reason to think that
Craig meant to count </SPAN><I>that </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">kind
of dependence against objectivity, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
there seems to be no other sense in which S3 would depend on anyone’s
beliefs. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So, it seems that in the case</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
of S1, S2 and S3, objectivity in the ordinary sense of the term
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">outlined</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
above and objectivity in the sense </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
the term </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">used by Craig in his
metaethical argument go together. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Still, one may ask whether </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">–</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
at least, when it comes to the objectivity of statements</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">– </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">actually u</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">sing
the word ‘objective’ in the same sense as the ordinary
sense </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">outlined</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
above, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or S1, S2 and S3 are
just cases in which the referent of the term ‘objective’
in the ordinary sense outlined above and the referent of the term
‘objective’ in the sense of the term used by Craig in his
metaethical argument, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">happen
to </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">overlap. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">A number of his statements strongly
support the hypothesis</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the meaning is the same </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or
approximately close to that, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at
least when it comes to the objectivity of statements, matters, etc.,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">despite some obscurity in
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
formulation, since – for instance: </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
I</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n his defense of the
metaethical argument</SPAN><A HREF="#r1"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[r1]</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">makes a classification of
matters between </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">objective
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ones and</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
matters of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">personal</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
taste or opinion</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">. O</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">bjective
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">matters </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
be those that do </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">not
dependent on </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">people’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
opinion</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, whereas those that
do depend </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">on that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
be subjective</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, and those
would be matters of taste, or opinion.</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">also
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">uses such examples of
non-objectivity (i.e., matters of taste or opinion) in the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">context
of his argument against </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">gay
relations</SPAN><A HREF="#r3"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[r</SPAN></A><A HREF="#r3"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">3</SPAN></A><A HREF="#r3"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">where he </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">also
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">makes </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">some
of the main </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">metaethical
claims he makes in the context of his metaethical argument</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In that context, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">he’s
using the term ‘objective’ in the usual sense –</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
he does not try to define it </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
that context</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, but </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">rather
appeals to the intuitive grasp of the term. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In that context, he also opposes matters of fact to matters of taste,
or matters of opinion.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Those considerations also allow us to infer how Craig classification
works for matters. In that case, there would be two categories:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1. </B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Matters
of fact, or objective matters</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
Matters of opinion, matters of taste, or subjective matters. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">T</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">here
might be debatable subtleties about, say, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">whether
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there are some differences
between the meanings of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘it’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s
a subjective </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">matter’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘it’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">matter
of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">taste’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘it’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s
a matter of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">opinion’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘there is no objective
fact of the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">matter’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘there</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
is a fact of the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">matter’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">etc.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">but for now, we may establish
the following equivalences</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
which seem to be in line with common usage of the terms, and also
seem to match </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
usage: </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>E1: </B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">A
matter </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">M </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
objective if and only if </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">M is
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a matter of fact if and only
if </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">M i</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s
not a matter of opinion. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>E2: </B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">A
statement</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> or judgment </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">S
is objective if and only if there is a fact of the matter as to
whether S is true if and only if there is an objective fact of the
matter as to whether S is true.</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Perhaps, someone might disagree with
the equivalence between </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘there</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
is a fact of the matter as to whether S is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">true’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘there</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
is an </SPAN><I>objective</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> fact
of the matter as to whether S is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">true’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I will address the issue in
this context </SPAN><A HREF="#objectivedependent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>later</U></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="objectivevalues1"></A>
<B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2.2.
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Objective
moral values and duties.</SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
While the meaning of ‘objective’ in the case of
statements, judgments, matters, etc., <A HREF="#objectivestatements"><U>appears
clear enough</U></A>, the terms ‘objective values’ and
‘objective duties’ in Craig’s metaethical argument
are more obscure.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
When addressing the matter, Craig makes a distinction between what he
calls ‘moral values’ and ‘moral duties’, and
associates the first with good and bad, and the second with right and
wrong. <A HREF="#r1">[r1]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
I partially agree with Craig’s distinction, though not
completely. The degree of agreement is not entirely clear. For
example:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>1.</B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
I</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
do not see any difference </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">b</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etween
saying ‘</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Bob
behaved immorally’ and ‘Bob behave in a morally bad way’.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
More generally, I do not see any differences in the meaning of
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘morally</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">bad’</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
when applied to actions, and </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘morally</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">wrong’</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On the other
hand, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘morally
bad’ is also predicated of agents, and as such it’s a
character trait, whereas ‘morally wrong’ is predicated of
actions only</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Craig’s explanation of the distinction he makes is not
sufficiently detailed for me to tell whether he would disagree with
any of my assessments in point 1.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>2.</B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
O</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ne
may talk about doing something that is ‘a necessary evil’,
and in that case, a person may be bringing about something bad –</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
or evil -</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but in order to prevent something worse –</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
for instance -</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">without
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">behaving
in a morally bad</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">/morally
evil</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">way</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Craig’s explanation of the distinction he makes is not
sufficiently detailed for me to tell whether he would disagree with
any of my assessments in point 2.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>3.</B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Also, in that context, I do not think that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘a</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
necessary </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">evil’</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘something</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">bad’</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
means </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">morally
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">evil,
or </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">morally</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
bad. And it seems </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">probable</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to me, given his words, that Craig would disagree with my assessment
on that matter.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>4.</B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
would </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">make
a distinction between bad things, situations, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">even
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">behaviors,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">agents,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.,
and </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">morally
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">bad
behavior, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">agents,
etc. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
instance, a child dying of cancer is a bad situation, but I don’t
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">know</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
there is anything </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">morally
</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">bad
about it, as long as no moral agents are involved in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">causing
it. Also, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
behavior of some agent may be a bad thing without being morally
wrong, or morally bad. For instance, a crocodile drowning a child </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
order to eat him </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
a bad thing. But </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
crocodile’s behavior is not </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">morally
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">bad,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
far as I can tell. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It’s
not morally anything</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Craig's explanation of the distinction he makes is not sufficiently
detailed for me to tell whether he would disagree with any of my
assessments in point 4.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>5. </B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
for goodness, I would agree </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
course </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
there is a difference </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
morally good actions and morally obligatory actions. For instance,
some actions involving self-sacrifice are plausibly morally good but
not obligatory, but supererogatory. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
seems clear that Craig accepts that distinction too. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Still, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">here
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
may stick to </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig’s
distinction for the sake of the argument, since </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">whether
he’s right about that particular point </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">makes
no relevant difference in th</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e
context of the objections </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
his metaethical argument </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I’m
going to raise. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, in any case, his explanation of the distinction between
good/bad and right/wrong does not elucidate what Craig means when he
claims that objective moral values and duties do <I>exist</I>, though
he provides some information that we may use to analyze his claim. On
that note, we can tell the following:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>1</B>. In asserting the second premise, Craig is saying that there
is an objective fact of the matter as to whether, say, the Holocaust
was immoral. And the same goes for other moral matters.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>2</B>. It’s clear also that the second premise does not only
entail that there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether,
say, the Holocaust was immoral – and the same for other matters
about right or wrong or [morally] good or bad, etc.-, but also <I>at
least </I>that some judgments like ‘A has a moral obligation to
Z’, ‘Y is morally good’, etc., are true., for some
<I>actual </I>behavior or agent Y, and some actual agent A.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
We can tell that 2. is true for the following reasons:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>2.</B><B>a.</B> If the second premise only entailed that there is
an objective fact of the matter as to whether behaviors are right or
wrong, etc., then that would be compatible with a moral error theory.
As a parallel, the statement ‘All combustible materials
contains phlogiston’ is objective, but false.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>2. </B><B>b.</B> The reason for the actuality requirement is that
without it, then also a moral error theory would seem to be
compatible with the second premise. For instance, let's say theory T1
holds that:.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>2.b.1. </B>There is an objective fact of the matter as to whether
the Holocaust and other behaviors are morally wrong, whether some
agent has a moral obligation, etc. However, no actual agent has any
moral obligations, or is morally good or morally bad, etc.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>2.b.2.</B> Statements like ‘All immoral behaviors are
immoral’, ‘If a person has a moral obligation not to lie,
then that person has a moral obligation not to lie’, ‘All
moral obligations are moral obligations’, ‘All entities
who have at least one moral obligation have at least one moral
obligation’, etc., are all true, and furthermore necessarily
true.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>2.b.3. </B>It's metaphysically possible that there is some agent
that has a moral obligation, but actually, no agent has any moral
obligations, and given the way the world actually happens to be,
there will never be any agent who will have any moral obligations
and/or will be morally good or bad, etc.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, T1 is a moral error theory. But it seems clear that Craig
intended to rule out all such theories in his second premise, and
that’s also clear given the arguments he gives in support of
it.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, based on the above, we can tell that the second premise of
Craig’s metaethical argument at least implies the two following
two conditions:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="OMVD"></A>
<B>OMVD1:</B><B> </B>Statements – or judgments, or whatever one
calls them – of the form ‘X is immoral’, ‘Y
is morally good’, ‘A has a moral obligation to Z’,
etc., are objective, in the ordinary sense of the term ‘objective’
mentioned above. For instance, if someone claims that gay sex is
immoral among humans – as Craig does <A HREF="#r3">[r3]</A>-,
then there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether that
claim is true, and so on.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>OMVD2: </B>Some statements of the form ‘A has a moral
obligation to Z’ are true, and some statements of the form ‘Y
is morally good’ are true, and so on, where Y is an actual
behavior of a person, or a person, A is an actual agent, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
The two issues are very different ones, as the phlogiston and Santa
Claus examples – for instance – illustrate.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For example, S1 and S2 are objective statements, but all statements
of the form ‘X contains phlogiston’ are false. Similarly,
someone might maintain that OMVD1 is true, but OMVD2 is false –
and so, that a moral error theory obtains, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Also, for instance, to say that no statement of the form ‘X
contains phlogiston’ is true for any actual X is very different
from saying that, at least for some X, whether X contains phlogiston
is a matter of taste, or a matter of opinion, or that there is no
objective fact of the matter as to whether X contains phlogiston,
etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
I will address that distinction in the context of Craig’s
claims in greater detail <A HREF="#craigclaims">later</A>.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For the moment, given the analysis so far, and despite some obscurity
in his argument, we can tell that at least P2 entails OMVD1 and
OMVD2.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Still, some questions remain, like:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>a. </B>Does P2 <I>mean</I> the same as the conjunction of OMVD1
and OMVD2?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>b.</B> If not, are P2 and the conjunction in question at least
necessarily equivalent conditions?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Given how Craig argues, it seems to me that a. is plausibly true –
and hence, so is b.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, in any case, Craig’s arguments in support of P2 are
essentially an appeal to human intuitions in support of <A HREF="#OMVD"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">OMVD1
</SPAN></A><A HREF="#OMVD"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">and
</SPAN></A><A HREF="#OMVD"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">OMVD</SPAN></A><A HREF="#OMVD"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">2</SPAN></A><A HREF="#OMVD">
</A>and <I>nothing</I> beyond that, so <I><B>if </B></I>P2 implied
something <I>not implied </I>by<I> </I>the conjunction of OMVD1 and
OMVD2, Craig would have failed to support the premise, and so his
theistic case would fail on account of that, independently of other
considerations.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, there seems to be no good reason to grant anything beyond
those conditions.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Given that, and since P2 entails the conjunction OMVD1 and OMVD2, we
may consider the conditions necessarily equivalent. In other words,
we may assume in this context that b. is true – which seems to
be the case, anyway, given many of Craig’s words.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Under that understanding, let’s accept Craig’s second
premise.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="objectivedependent"></A>
<B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">2.3. Objectivit</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">y
and mind-dependence.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"> Objective pain and
objective fear. </FONT></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="op"></A>
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">A</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">parallel</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
to the claim that objective moral values and duties </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">do
exist</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
let’s consider the claim that objective pain </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">does
exist</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As
in the case of</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#OMVD"><U>OMVD1 and OMVD2</U></A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
claim that objective pain </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">exists
means </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
same as </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">o</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r
is </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at
least </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">equivalent
to the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">conjunction
of the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">following
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">two
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">conditions:
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="OMVD11"></A>
<B>O</B><B>P</B><B>1:</B><B> </B>Statements – or judgments, or
whatever one calls them – of the form ‘X is in pain’
are objective, in the ordinary sense of the term ‘objective’
mentioned above. For instance, if someone claims that Bob is in pain
– Bob is a specific agent -, then there is an objective fact of
the matter as to whether that claim is true, and so on. To use
Craig’s own distinction, whether Bob is in pain is not a matter
of opinion, but a matter of fact.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>O</B><B>P</B><B>2: </B>Some statements of the form ‘A is in
pain’ are true, where A is an actual agent.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, the claim that objective pain exists, so understood, is true.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For example, just as the matter of whether there is a cat on a
specific mat over there is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion,
so is whether the cat that is on the mat – let’s say
there is one, named 'Bob' – is in pain.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Also, there are some actual agents that are in pain.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Simi</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">larly,
we may consider objective fear</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and it's clear that objective fear does exist. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
example, if</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Alice
is a specific person, whether </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Alice</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
afraid of the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actual
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cat
that is on the mat, or whether she fears tarantulas, are matters of
fact, not matters of opinion. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, it's clear that some actual agents do fear some things.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
So, objective fear does exist.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
there is a sense of 'mind-dependent' in which fear, pain, etc., are
mind-dependent </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">states.
</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>the meaning of ‘objective’
(and ‘subjective’) used by Craig in the context of his
metaethical argument is <I>not</I> related to that matter.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
That said, there are two points that I would like to address here:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>1.</B> It might be argued that it’s not possible for Bob to
experience pain without believing that he is experiencing pain. Does
that mean that whether Bob is in pain depends on Bob's beliefs, and
so it's not an objective matter?</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
Leaving aside the issue of whether ‘depends’ would be the
correct term here, and even if it’s true that it’s not
possible for Bob to experience pain without believing that he is
experiencing pain, that is still <I>not </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
problem for objectivity in this context. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
matter of whether Bob is in pain is </SPAN><I>not</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and </SPAN><I>that </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is the
classification that Craig uses, and the measure of objectivity as he
uses the words in the context of the metaethical argument. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
Someone might suggest that even if there is a fact of the matter as
to whether the cat that is on the mat is in pain, there is no
</SPAN><I>objective </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">fact of the
matter, because objectivity requires mind-independence. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
As I see it, there is no semantic difference in colloquial speech
between the meanings of the statements 'there is an objective fact of
the matter as to whether the cat is in pain', and 'there is a fact of
the matter as to whether the cat is in pain', etc., so I will use the
expressions interchangeably unless otherwise specified.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
even if I'm mistaken about that, the point </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
remain</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that whether Bob</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– i.e., the cat in question – </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
in pain is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion, and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
the classification that Craig uses, and the measure of objectivity as
he uses the words in the context of the metaethical argument. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#disagreement1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[3]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
if it turned out that there is a difference in colloquial speech
between</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
meaning of the statement 'there is an objective fact of the matter as
to whether </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
cat </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
in pain', and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
meaning of the statement </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'there
is a fact of the matter as to whether </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
cat </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
in pain', </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">then
Craig would be using 'objective' in a different way, but in any case,
by his usage of the words, it would remain the case that objective
pain exists, objective fear exists, and so on. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
in short, it seems that objectivity in the context of Craig's
metaethical argument is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">about
mind-independence</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and mind-dependence </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">–
at least not unless there is a sense of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">mind-independence/mind-dependence
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">classification
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
matches the matter of fact/matter of opinio</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">classification</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="necessity"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>4</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Objectivi</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>ty
and necessity.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
While this section is not required in the context of Craig’s
metaethical argument,– this section can be seen as a long side
note -, I think the matter of necessity might be important in the
context of some ontological metaethical arguments for theism, if some
points are raised, so I will address it.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
While objective fear and objective pain do exist, it’s clear
that there are possible scenarios in which they do not. It's true
that <I>possibly, no agent experiences pain or fear. </I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, let W1 be a scenario in which there is never any entity that
experiences any pain.<A HREF="#pw">[</A><A HREF="#pw">4</A><A HREF="#pw">]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If W1 were actual, then objective pain would not exist. However,
there would still be a fact of the matter as to whether a specific
entity E that exists in W1 is in pain. Moreover, the matter of
whether an entity in W1 is in pain would not be a matter of opinion.
Rather, the fact of the matter would be that no entity in W1 is in
pain.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, let’s consider objective moral values and duties.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It seems that on Craig’s ontology, the claim that objective
moral values do exist would be necessarily true – since Craig’s
ontology posits that God is necessary -, but the claim that objective
moral duties do exist would be contingently true, since plausibly God
could refrain from creating any entities to whom he would issue any
commands, so <A HREF="#OMVD"><U>OMVD2</U></A> would not be true with
regard to moral obligations, and <FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">since
the second premise affirms that </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">both
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">objective
moral values </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">and
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">objective
moral </SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">duties
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">exist,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">it
seems that the second </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">premise
is, on Craig's ontology, contingently true. </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Since I see no good reason to believe that a necessary agent exists,
or that necessarily, there are agents, or that necessarily there are
entities that are morally good, or morally bad, or have moral
obligations, etc., I would reject both a claim that objective moral
values necessarily exist, and a claim that objective moral duties
necessarily exist.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Of course, to be clear, if W2 <A HREF="#pw">[</A><A HREF="#pw">4</A><A HREF="#pw">]</A><A HREF="#pw">i</A>s
a scenario in which objective moral values and/or duties do not
exist, it does <I>not</I> follow from that that whether <FONT COLOR="#000000">some
agent (say, a shark) that exists in W2 has a moral obligation, or is
morally good, etc., </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">are</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
matter</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">s </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">of
opinion</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">or
that statements like ‘It’s immoral for any adult human to
torture infants for fun’, or ‘If an adult </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">man</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
were to torture infants for fun, he would be acting immorally’,</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">would not be true</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
in W2. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But the contingency of the claims that objective moral values and/or
duties exist is not problematic.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So, in
short, upon reflection, I see no problem in granting the second
premise </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">from
a non-theistic perspective</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
but </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">I
would refrain from </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">granting
that it’s necessarily true – </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">in
any case, </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Craig’s
own position seems committed to the contingency of the second
premise, for the reasons given above</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="craigclaims"></A>
<B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">3. The f</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">irst
premise.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"> </FONT></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
The first premise of Craig’s metaethical argument is that if
God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not
exist.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For now, I will not address the issue of what Craig means by “God”,
and focus on the consequent.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, in order to defend the first premise, Craig more or less
explicitly assumes a scenario in which God does not exist, and makes
some arguments<A HREF="#arguecase">[</A><A HREF="#arguecase">5</A><A HREF="#arguecase">]</A>
in support of the claim that in such a scenario<A HREF="#impossible">[</A><A HREF="#impossible">6</A><A HREF="#impossible">]</A>,
objective moral values and duties do not exist. <A HREF="#wouldnot">[</A><A HREF="#wouldnot">7</A><A HREF="#wouldnot">]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, there some very different ways in which someone might argue
that, in a certain scenario, objective moral values and duties do not
exist. For instance, someone might potentially, and <I>under the
assumption t</I><I>hat God does not exist</I>:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>a.</B> Argue for the conclusion that <A HREF="#OMVD"><U>OMVD1</U></A>
is false. <A HREF="#sometimesobjective">[</A><A HREF="#sometimesobjective">8</A><A HREF="#sometimesobjective">]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>b.</B> Argue for the conclusion that <A HREF="#OMVD"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">OMVD</SPAN></A><A HREF="#OMVD"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">2</SPAN></A>
is false.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>c.</B> Somehow argue for the conclusion that the conjunction of
<A HREF="#OMVD"><U>OMVD1 and OMVD2</U></A> is false, without making a
specific argument for the falsity of one of them in particular.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For instance, if OMVD1 is false, then there is no objective fact of
the matter as to whether, say, the Holocaust was morally wrong –
or perhaps there is in that case, but not in many others; I will
leave those issues aside to simplify.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
On the other hand, if OMVD2 is false, it seems that there is an
objective fact of the matter – namely, it’s not the case
that the Holocaust was morally wrong.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, one may wonder what Craig is arguing for.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In his defense of the metaethical argument<A HREF="#r1">[r1]</A>, he
first asks – rhetorically – whether without God, moral
issues are akin to matters of taste, like whether chocolate tastes
better than vanilla. That suggests that he’s trying to say that
without God <A HREF="#OMVD"><U>OMVD1</U></A> would be false, and
there would be no objective fact of the matter as to, say, whether
the Holocaust was immoral – or other moral judgments -, and
also that it would be a matter of taste, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
On the other hand, in the same context, Craig claims that without
God, the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ would have
no reference point. But that actually suggest an error theory, at
least for ‘good’ and ‘evil’, since taste
judgments plausibly do have referent points even if
speaker-dependent, and it’s improbable that he would argue that
without God, an error theory holds for good and evil, but instead
right and wrong are matters of taste.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, what is Craig arguing for?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In another post <A HREF="#r3">[r</A><A HREF="#r3">3</A><A HREF="#r3">]</A>,
Craig says that without God, those who claim that right and wrong,
and good and evil, are matters of taste, would be “absolutely
correct”, that the matter becomes one that depends on culture,
and so on. That clearly indicates that he’s claiming that
without God, <A HREF="#OMVD"><U>OMVD</U></A><U>1</U> is false.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Yet, in the same document, he claims that without God, everything is
permitted. But that seems to be a claim that ‘Behavior Z is
permissible’ is true for all Z, which would also imply that ‘A
has a moral obligation to X’ is <I>false</I>, for all A, X, and
so on, rather than ‘it’s permissible to me, but not to
you’, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, Craig appears to be jumping between claiming that without God, a
moral error theory obtains, and that without God, some sort of
speaker-relativism or subjectivism<A HREF="#subjective">[</A><A HREF="#subjective">9</A><A HREF="#subjective">]</A>
is true.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
His arguments do not seem to be of much help figuring out what he’s
trying to establish, either. He goes on to make a number of claims,
but we’re not closer to establishing what it is that he’s
trying to show would happen without God.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Still, let’s take a look at what a theist would probably need
to establish if he claimed without God, <A HREF="#OMVD"><U>OMVD1</U></A>
is false, and what he would need to establish if he claimed that
without God, <A HREF="#OMVD"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">OMVD</SPAN></A><A HREF="#OMVD"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">2</SPAN></A>
is false.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="iii"></A><A NAME="OMVD1c"></A>
With regard to OMVD1, it seems that at the very least, in order to
establish that without God, <A HREF="#OMVD">OMVD1</A> is false, a
theist would have to show that without God, at least one of the
following conditions obtains:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>i.</B> Different competent speakers of moral language mean
different things when they make moral statements, even if they’re
using all terms correctly.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>ii.</B> Moral statements are statements about<I> </I>the speaker
(e.g., like ‘X is immoral’ means ‘I do not like
X’).
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>iii.</B> The standards each human being is using when assessing
moral wrongness, goodness, etc.,<I> </I>vary from person to
person<A HREF="#sufficient">[</A><A HREF="#sufficient">1</A><A HREF="#sufficient">0</A><A HREF="#sufficient">]</A>
in ideal conditions.<I> </I><A HREF="#ideal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">[</SPAN></A><A HREF="#ideal">1</A><A HREF="#ideal">1</A><A HREF="#ideal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">]</SPAN></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Those conditions overlap to some extent, but that’s not a
problem.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, regarding condition <B>iii</B>, that is <I>not</I> the same as
establishing that there is moral disagreement – which is clear
-, or that different people sometimes have different<I> theories
</I>about what the proper standards are – which is clear as
well.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Rather, a theist would have to establish that, when different [actual
or potential] human beings use their own sense of right and wrong
without making any errors, they come up to different moral
assessments sometimes – or maybe a sufficient number of times,
but let’s leave that aside to simplify. <A HREF="#sufficient">[</A><A HREF="#sufficient">1</A><A HREF="#sufficient">0</A><A HREF="#sufficient">]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For instance, as an analogy to this, it may be that Bob uses his
gustatory taste and says that the chocolate cake tastes better the
apple pie, whereas Alice uses hers and says the apple pie tastes
better, and neither of them is making an error in the use of their
sense of gustatory taste, which are the standards they use for
assessing tastiness. So, under ideal conditions, the difference
persists.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In order to establish that without God, <A HREF="#OMVD">OMVD1</A> is
false, it seems to me a theist very probably would have to establish
that without God, the faculty or faculties competent speakers of
moral language use to make judgments of right and wrong or good and
evil<A HREF="#badrwrong2">[</A><A HREF="#badrwrong2">1</A><A HREF="#badrwrong2">2</A><A HREF="#badrwrong2">]</A>,
are such that they diverge in a sense similar to what the gustatory
taste example shows, or perhaps<I> </I>that <B>i.</B> or <B>ii.</B>
obtain, for the following reason:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If the human sense of right and wrong and/or good and evil converge
under ideal conditions <A HREF="#ideal">[</A><A HREF="#ideal">9</A><A HREF="#ideal">]</A>,
very probably there would be an objective fact of the matter in the
sense of ‘objective’ relevant in this context, at least
if people mean the same by the terms.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For instance, if there is convergence under ideal conditions, and
Alice says that the Holocaust was immoral, whereas Bob says that the
Holocaust was not immoral, it seems at least one of them is making –
deliberately or not – a false claim, since in ideal conditions,
they would both converge to one assessment – in this case, that
it was immoral. It seems, in particular, that whether the Holocaust
was immoral plausibly would not be a matter of opinion, or of taste.
The same would apply to other moral judgments.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">P</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">erhaps,
a theist might say </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">they do
not need </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>iii</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.,
because the ‘human beings’ condition is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">allegedly
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">too restrictive, and that
there would be no objective moral values and duties if there are some
other, non-human agents (say, aliens from another planet), with
something akin to a sense of right and wrong or good and evil, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">but</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
associated with different behaviors, states, etc., from the ones the
human sense or senses are associated with. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">However, that would have to be
argued for, and that would </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">seem
to require</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"> arguing some
moral </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">semantics</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
since the theist in question would have to show –</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
for instance – </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">that
the aliens’ utterances count as moral claims – rather
than only something akin to them – </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">and
that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">are relevant to
assessing whether there is an objective fact of the matter </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">as
to whether some behavior is immoral</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">even though </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">in
other cases – e.g., color – whatever the aliens do </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">or
say </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">does not count </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">when
it comes to objectivity. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">I</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
will take a look at </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">alien
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">examples</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
in greater detail late</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">r</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">since Craig uses </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">them</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
even though he does not explain what he’s trying to establish
with that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">example </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">–
i.e., is he trying to establish OMVD1, or OMVD2? And how? </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">For now, I will point out that
Craig claims he’s not doing moral semantics, but moral ontology
</SPAN><A HREF="#r4"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">[r4]</SPAN></A><A HREF="#r5">[r5]</A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">yet establishing </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>i.,
ii., iii</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">., or even the
alien variant, would </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">seem
to </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">require arguing about
the meaning of moral terms – i.e., it would precisely require
arguing moral semantics. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="OMVD2c"></A>
Let’s now take a look at another option: a theist might claim
that without God, <A HREF="#OMVD">OMVD</A><A HREF="#OMVD">2</A> is
false.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In order to establish that, he would have to show that without God,
all statements like ‘X is immoral’, or all statements
like ‘X is morally good’, etc., are untrue.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
How might he argue in support of one of those conclusions?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
One way would be for him to consider many hypothetical scenarios
without God, and argue that in all of them the claim ‘X is
immoral’ would be untrue. Clearly, that is a <I>very heavy</I>
burden.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Indeed, if we use our sense of right and wrong intuitively, it seems
clear that an adult human torturing children for fun is behaving
immorally, even if we stipulate in the scenario that God does not
exist. In fact, whether God exists is intuitively orthogonal.
Granted, a theist might say that they have different intuitions. But
why should we put aside our intuitions and accept his?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
An alternative approach would be for the theist to, say, try to show
that the <I>meaning </I>of the term ‘immoral’ is such
that the claim ‘X is immoral’, where X is an actual
behavior, entails the existence of certain entity that would not
exist without God. A simple example would be if, say, ‘X is
immoral’ meant ‘God forbids X’, but that’s
not the case, so the theist would have to defend another hypothesis,
if he were to take this route.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In any case, it seems that the theist would have to do some moral
semantics if he tried that course of action. Also, of course, in
order to establish such claims about the meaning of ‘immoral’,
the theist would still need to appeal to his intuitive grasp of the
terms, and so to his sense of right and wrong. But why should we
follow his sense of right and wrong, instead of ours?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In the specific case of Craig, he says that in his metaethical
argument, he’s not doing moral semantics<I>, </I>but moral
ontology <A HREF="#r4">[r4]</A><A HREF="#r5">[r5]</A>.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Is there another route?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In any case, it’s hard to see also how a theist might go about
establishing results about moral ontology without doing at least some
moral semantics.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
That said, I will consider Craig’s specific claims and
arguments in support of P1, granting that objective moral values and
duties do exist, <A HREF="#OMVD">under the understanding </A><A HREF="#OMVD">explained
above</A>.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="traditional"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>3. A traditional view on moral values and
moral duties?</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">According
to Craig</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r2">[r2]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
moral values were </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">traditionally
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">considered
“anchored” on God, and moral duties were considered to
come from God’s commandments. In that context, God is
understood to be the ‘Supreme Good’. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,
Craig maintains that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">by
definition</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
God is the greatest conceivable being</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
(GCB)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r5">[r5]</A><A HREF="#r5b">[r5b]</A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
w</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hile
‘moral duties’ is a term in English, the concept of moral
duties exists in other languages as well. As for ‘moral
values’, the expression is somewhat obscure, but </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
any case, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
concepts of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">morally
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">good
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">morally
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">bad
exist in other languages as well, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
so do</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">es</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the concept</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of justic</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– which Craig </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">refers
to as a moral value. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, once we take that into consideration, it’s clear that
Craig’s claim is not true as a general claim about humans, or
human civilization, etc., but is limited to some cultures.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
instance, in China, people do not traditionally believe that their
obligations have to do with the commands of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
In fact, they traditionally do not believe in God, in the sense in
which Craig is using the word ‘</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
way is not particularly precise (e.g., the word 'greatest' is not so
clear in that context), but it's clear enough to tell </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God
is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
the creator of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Chinese
folk religion</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s,
like Pangu </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
Shangdi</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and isn’t anything posited by Buddhism, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">either,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
by any religion common in China. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,
in Japan, there is no traditional belief in the existence of God, or
on any “anchoring”, etc., of goodness or of moral
obligations in anyone’s </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">nature
and/or </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">commands,
or in any other agents for that matter. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">There
are different religious beliefs, like Shinto or Buddhism, that
influenced each other and had more or less acceptance in their
various forms at different times, but in any case, they did not posit
a God-based moral ontology, or any divine commands, and so on. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
fact, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">historically,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
are plenty of cultures without belief in God, and without a belief
that moral obligations were the commands of certain entities, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ven
if </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">most
people in those cultures traditionally</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
believe </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
believed </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
different entities that are sometimes called in English ‘gods’,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
but which do no metaethical work.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">imilar
points apply to moral goodness. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, it’s not the case that traditionally, among humans, moral
goodness was considered to be anchored in God or in any other entity
for that matter, and the same goes for moral duties. Instead, beliefs
on the subject appear to vary widely from culture to culture, and
sometimes within cultures. <A HREF="#cultures">[1</A><A HREF="#cultures">3</A><A HREF="#cultures">]</A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="natural"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">4</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
Naturalism</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">moral
values and duties, pain</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and fear</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">c</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">laim</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
the most popular view among atheists is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">N</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">aturalism,
which Craig describes as “</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">he
view that science and science alone determines what exists. What
exists is what our best scientific theories of the world require.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
something is not required by our best scientific theories of the
world, then it does not exist.”</SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r2">[r2]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
Now, <SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig does
not say</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
there</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
whether it’s our </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>current</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
best scientific theories, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">some
future theory that will plausibly be developed. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If it’s our
current theories, then it’s very obvious that Naturalism so
defined is false, since there are </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">many
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">matters
of existence of objects that remain unsettled in present-day physics
– for instance -, and there </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">almost
certainly </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
particles we do not know about </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">yet</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
etc. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But moreover,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">even
if </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">one
includes </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">future
theories, it</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
seems clear that neither human scientists nor any post-human beings
</SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#post">[1</A><A HREF="#post">4</A><A HREF="#post">]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">will
discover all of the things that exist on all of the planets in the
entire universe, and in particular, that if there are alien lifeforms
elsewhere in the universe, chances are </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">some
– even </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">most</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
– </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
them will never be discovered by human or post-human beings. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Still, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>perhaps</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
in his definition of '</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘Naturalism’</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
Craig meant that Naturalism is the view that what </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>kinds
</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
entities exist is somehow </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">“determined”</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
by science alone, or something along those lines. That would raise
questions about how </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘kinds’</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘entities’</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
are understood in his context, so more precision </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">on
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
part </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
be needed, but in any case, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>at
the very least</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
Naturalism so defined </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
probably</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
unjustified, since there seems to be no good reason to think that
human beings even or post-human beings will ever have </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">kind
of epistemic access</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that it probably </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
require, under any reasonable understanding of </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
definition. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In any event,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
claim that Naturalism so defined is the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">most
popular view among atheists seems to be </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">also
unjustified. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But problems for
Naturalism so defined aside, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">let’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
assess </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">claim
that on </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">N</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">aturalism,
there are no objective </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">moral
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">values</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In support of
that claim, he gives the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">example
that one cannot find moral values in a test tube. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
a strange example.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Science
is not done only in </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">test
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">tubes.
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
any case, i</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">f
one can’t find moral values in a test tube, then it seems that
similarly, one can’t find </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">fear
or pain i</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n
a test tube. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">What
would be the difference? </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
Naturalism –</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
as defined by Craig – </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
committed to the claim</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that objective pain </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
not exist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and/or that</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objective
fear does not exist, and so on, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">then</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
we can easily tell that Naturalism so</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
defined </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">false</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
independently of the previous considerations about alien planets or
particles</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">independently
of metaethical considerations as well. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
p</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">erhaps,
someone might claim that on </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
kind of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Naturalism,
objective pain </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
exist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
since our best theories about, say, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">pain</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">seem
to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">require
that there is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objective
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">pain,
even if we can’t find </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">pain</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
test tube. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Similarly,
it might be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">claimed</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">since
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">our
best theories about, say, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">fear</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
require that there is objective fear</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there is objective fear on naturalism so defined. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
that case</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
one may also point out that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">our
best theories i</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
psycholog</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">y
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">seem</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to require that objective moral duties do exist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
example, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">based
on </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">our
best theories in psychology</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and experiments</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
can tell that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objective
antisocial personality disorder </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
exist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
such disorder</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is characterized as “</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>... a pervasive
pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that
begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into
adulthood”<A HREF="#psycho">[1</A><A HREF="#psycho">5</A><A HREF="#psycho">]</A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
That seems to require that others have rights that can be violated in
the first place. Also, it’s not the case that those rights in
the definition are <I>legal</I> rights. Surely, people may well meet
the criteria for having antisocial personality disorder even if they
live in, say, a failed state, or generally a lawless land.
Alternatively, a brutal ruler with antisocial personality disorder
may respect the law – only he makes the laws that he likes.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
But if there are rights, plausibly necessarily there are duties.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, Craig provides no good reason to think that our best
scientific theories will not require objective moral values as well.
For instance, studying the conditions in which children are more
likely to become <I>good persons </I>is<I> </I>a perfectly valid
scientific research goal <A HREF="#research">[1</A><A HREF="#research">6</A>],
as long as we have a reasonably good epistemic access to moral truth
– which Craig accepts. Granted, a theist might claim that if
theism is not true, that would not be a valid research goal. But the
burden would be on him. The point here is that Craig provides no good
reason to think that in the future, scientists will either be theists
or reject such research projects.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, <I><B>if</B></I> we include psychology and/or neuropsychology, in
the definition of ‘Naturalism’, then Craig has failed to
establish that on Naturalism so defined, P2 is false.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
On the other hand, <I><B>i</B></I><I><B>f</B></I> we exclude
psychology, neuropsychology, etc. from the definition, then
Naturalism as defined by Craig is committed to the non-existence of
objective pain, pleasure, anger, fear, etc.; in that case, it's very
obvious that Naturalism so defined is false, even if we don't
consider metaethical questions.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But in any case, a non-theist need not worry about that. She may
simply not adhere to Naturalism as defined by Craig – I don't
adhere to it, for instance -, and point out that – for instance
– she still sees no good reason to believe that God exists –
I don't, for example.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="determined"></A>
<B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">5</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">Morality
an</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">d determinism. </FONT></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
another article, Craig also maintains</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#r9"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r9"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r10">1</A><A HREF="#r10">0</A>]<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">without
freedom, our choices are not “morally significant”, and
that there is no freedom if determinism is true. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
I would say that if we cannot make choices of our own free will, then
plausibly we cannot behave immorally, and we cannot have moral
obligations. But Craig does not seem to provide any good reason to
suspect that if determinism is true, we cannot make choices of our
own free will, or anything like that.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Even granting for the sake of the argument that the libertarian
conception of free will is coherent, that does not entail that the
libertarian account is true.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In fact, unless the regular concept of making choices of one’s
own accord or one’s own free will – which is what
plausibly is needed for morality, freedom-wise – has
ontological commitments incompatible with determinism – or with
causal determinism, if someone makes that difference and claims the
problem is only with causal determinism -, it seems there is no
difficulty in this context.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
Craig does not show that there are such ontological commitments </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
the regular concept of free will. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Rather,
he </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">claims
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
we would be like puppets, etc</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.,
“controlled by </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">the
strings of sensory input and physical constitution”, but does
not provide a definition of ‘physical’, or explain why we
would not be making our choices freely. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
In particular, causation at a lower level does not seem to deny
causation at a higher level. For instance, even if there is a causal
explanation in terms of particles of the event consisting in a
lioness killing a wildebeest, that does not entail or suggest that
she did not kill the wildebeest, or even that she did not kill the
wildebeest because she was hungry. If a theist claims otherwise, the
burden would be on them.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Of course, this is by no means a comprehensive analysis of
compatibilist accounts of freedom. But there is no need for that
here.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Craig claims, in the context of one of his defenses of the claim that
morality needs theistic metaethical foundations, that freedom
requires non-determinism – and a specific kind of
non-determinism -, but has not shown that that is the case.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="color"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>6. Color, exobiology and genetic
engineering.</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">As
part of his defense of the metaethical argument, Craig also considers
some hypothetical scenarios in which aliens evolved differently,<A HREF="#r11">[r1</A><A HREF="#r11">1</A><A HREF="#r11">]</A>
and claims that those hypothetical scenarios support his claim that
without God, there are no objective moral values and duties.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">I
will address the specific case of objective moral values and duties
later, but first, I will consider other cases, as a means of
introducing parallels.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">So,
let’s consider the hypothesis that objective color does exist,
which – <A HREF="#OMVD">mirroring the analysis in the case of
objective moral values and duties</A> – means the same as the
conjunction of the following two conditions, or is at least
equivalent to the conjunction of the following two conditions:</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="oc"></A>
<B>O</B><B>C</B><B>1: </B>Statements – or judgments, or
whatever one calls them – of the form ‘X is green’,
‘Y is red’, etc., are objective, in the ordinary sense of
the term ‘objective’ mentioned above. For instance, if
someone claims that the cucumber on the table is green –
pointing at a specific table -, then there is an objective fact of
the matter as to whether that claim is true, and so on. To use
Craig’s own distinction, whether the cucumber on the table is
green is not a matter of opinion, or a matter of taste.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>O</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>C</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2:
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Some
statements of the form ‘X is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">green</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">’,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
‘</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Y
is red’, etc.., </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
true</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">where
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">X,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Y</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
etc., </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ar</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e
a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ctual
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objects.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ncidentally,
it seems Craig agrees that objective color does exist.</SPAN><A HREF="#r11b"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r11b]</SPAN></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
w</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e already know that, even
here on Earth, different animals have different visual systems that
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">react </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
different parts of the EM spectrum. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
instance, there are birds that can see light that is either infrared
or ultraviole</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, let’s consider the following scenario:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
There is a species of intelligent social alien (say, species#1) that
evolved on another planet, and they have also a different visual
system, which is stimulated by light in a way that is considerably
different from the way in which our human visual system is
stimulated.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Species#1 has a language shared by their entire species, and words
that they use in a way similar to the way we use color words in our
human languages. Let’s call that species#1-color language. <A HREF="#species1color">[</A><A HREF="#species1color">1</A><A HREF="#species1color">7</A><A HREF="#species1color">]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If they came to Earth, humans with a normal visual system, and under
normal conditions, would see all of them as almost entirely red –
and basically the same tone of red.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, they do not see themselves in that manner.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Instead, they classify themselves into six different categories,
species#1-color wise, which is in accordance to their perception, and
they also perceive each of the individuals in each of the categories
to have large parts of its body of one species#1-color, other parts
of another species#1-color, and so on. On the other hand, if they
were to visit Earth, they would see no difference between the way
‘go’ and ‘stop’ traffic lights look, since
they’re not different species#1-color.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Of course, if aliens like that do exist, it’s clear what those
aliens do or believe has nothing to do with, say, whether Bob ran a
red traffic light, or the light was green. In fact, whether a traffic
light was green or red is a matter of fact, and it does not depend on
anyone’s opinion, whether human or alien from another planet.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, if some of those aliens came to Earth and they were to claim, <I>in
English,</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> that traffic lights for
‘stop’ and ‘go’ are the same color, they
would be making a false statement. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">And if </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">some
humans</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> were to claim, in
their language, that all individuals of species#1 are the same
species#1</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">-</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">color,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">those humans would be making
a false claim as well, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">regardless
of what they believe. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On the other hand, humans would be
correct in claiming, in English, that all individuals of species#1
that they encountered are almost </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">entirely
red, and essentially all the same tone of red. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The crucial point is that such
aliens </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">might</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">make objective
</SPAN><I>species#1-color </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">statements
– </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the description of
the scenario supports that they do, so let’s say they do -</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
whereas humans make objective color statements. The objectivity of
color statements, or the objectivity of species#1-color statements,
in the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">sense of ‘objective’
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in the context of the
metaethical argument</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, is not
affected, threatened or otherwise debunked by the existence of such
different species. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, objective color does exist, and in the scenario, so does
objective species#1-color.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
While species#1, with those particular traits, is a hypothetical one,
it seems that for all we know, there may well be elsewhere in the
universe a species of intelligent, social aliens with a visual system
very different from the human visual system, color-like language,
true objective color-like statements, and so on.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Now, there might be some
philosophical sense of ‘objective’ in which, perhaps,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">such scenarios provide
evidence against the existence of objective color. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I
will not take a stance on that, but rather point out that that would
n</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ot be relevant in this
context, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">because that’s
not the sense of ‘objective’ we’re talking about. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="gmhumans1"></A>
An alternative scenario would be one involving human genetic
engineering.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
instance, using computers and other technolog</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ies</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we can set up a camera </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
set of cameras</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that take video footage but change the way it looks to us,
color-wise. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">We
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">can
use camera</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
sensitive to light in a spectrum of around, say, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">440nm
to 750nm instead of the visible spectrum </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">390nm
to 700nm, and then set it up so that on </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
computer </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">screen,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
cameras’ spectrum</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is translated into our visible spectrum </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">assigning
color according to some rules of our choosing</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so that the images on screen look to us differently from the way they
would look to us if we were to look at the objects directly under
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
usual daylight</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
conditions, and instead they look like the way some entities similar
to us but with a different visual system that responds to a spectrum
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
440nm to 750nm might see them.</SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#spectrum"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#spectrum"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#spectrum"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">8</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#spectrum"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
this case, we would see things like that due to a combination of the
camera</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the computer, etc., and our eyes – which we </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">use
to look at the computer screen -, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">without
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">any
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">genetic
engineering, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but
in a distant future, using genetic engineering, perhaps someone might
modify a group of humans to see things in that way. </SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#moralgenetics"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#moralgenetics"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#moralgenetics"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">9</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#moralgenetics"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let’s say that those genetically modified humans (say,
GM-humans#1) lived together in a country (or in a spaceship, etc.),
and developed words similar to our color words, but that would be
useful to people with their visual system. In that scenario, they
could make objectively true GM-human#1-color statements, etc., as we
can make objectively true color statements.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, objective color does exist<A HREF="#objectivecolor">[</A><A HREF="#objectivecolor">2</A><A HREF="#objectivecolor">0</A><A HREF="#objectivecolor">]</A>,
and in that scenario, so does objective GM-human#1-color.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">At
this point, someone might perhaps wonder whether GM-humans#1, or
species#1, etc., are nomologically possible. I would say that at
least, we do not know that they’re not, nor would </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
justified, given what we know about biology at this point, to claim
that they are not. Moreover, in the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">case
of aliens with different visual systems – not species#1, but
</SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">any </SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">other
species that may be used for a similar argument -, we are not even
justified in saying that they are not </SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actual.
</SPAN></I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In other words, we do not have
grounds for claiming that there </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
no intelligent and social alien </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">species
with </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">language and with
different visual systems like the ones suggested above in the entire
universe. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="beauty "></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>7. Beauty, exobiology, and Neanderthals. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
his reply </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
an objection to the metaethical argument</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
Craig claims that the evidence supports that beauty is objective.
</SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r12"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r12"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r12"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2]</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
a different context, he claims that there are objective </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">aesthetic
judgments</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r13"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r1</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r13"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">3]</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
clearly indicates </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hat
he also believes that some statements of the form ‘X is
beautiful’ are true. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
l</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">et’s
consider the hypothesis that objective beauty </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
exist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
which </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">means
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
same as </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
conjunction of the following two conditions, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
is at least equivalent to it. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="oc1"></A><A NAME="OB"></A>
<B>O</B><B>B</B><B>1: </B>Statements – or judgments, or
whatever one calls them – of the form ‘X is beautiful’
are objective, in the ordinary sense of the term ‘objective’
mentioned above. For instance, if someone claims that a specific
landscape is beautiful, then there is an objective fact of the matter
as to whether that claim is true, and so on. To use Craig’s own
distinction, whether that landscape is beautiful is a matter of fact,
not a matter of opinion.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>O</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>B</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2:
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Some
statements of the form ‘X is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">beautiful</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">’</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
true</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">where
X is an actual </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">object</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
One detail here is that one might wonder whether abstract objects
would count in OB2. However, addressing that issue would be
unnecessary for the purposes of the arguments at hand, so I will
exclude them just to simplify.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
aside, p</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ersonally,
I think that OB2 is true, and that plausibly in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">most</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
cases we encounter, there is an objective fact of the matter as to
whether an object is beautiful. However, I think there are cases in
which that is not so, and the proportion of cases in our experience
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">might
not be small enough for me to accept OB1, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">even
if one </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">accepts</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
a usual degree of tolerance. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
I would take no stance on </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">whether
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">OB1
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
there</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is no need to get into that in this context, so let’s </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">grant
that the conjunction of OB1 and OB2 is true. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">o,
objective beauty does exist. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">L</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">et’s
consider the following scenario: </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
another planet, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">evolved
intelligent, social aliens – say, species#2 -, which are </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
ugly as </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">any
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
the animals on those lists. Also, they evolved in dark, humid </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cave
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">environments,
which they find particularly appealing. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">They
find open spaces – like savannahs if they saw one -,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">particularly
unappealing. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Such
aliens have language that is akin to our language about beauty </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
the way they use it, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but
associated with very different things. </SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#beauty1"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#beauty1">2</A><A HREF="#beauty1">1</A><A HREF="#beauty1"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">After reflection
on the scenario, it seems intuitively clear to me that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">whether
some aliens evolved differently –</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">species#2
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
something like that</SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#species2"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#species2">2</A><A HREF="#species2">2</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
-</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
has </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">no</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
bearing on whether the truth-value of aesthetic judgments depends on
what people believe, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
on whether such judgments are true. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Intuitively,
what </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">aliens</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
do or perceive does nothing to undermine our sense of beauty, or our
judgments of beauty, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
the belief that objective beauty does exist, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">We would still
make objectively true judgments of beauty, and </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
aliens would make objective</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ly
true </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">judgments
of species#2-beauty, etc. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><BR></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
someone might insist that </SPAN><I><B>if </B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
aliens existed, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">then</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
there would be no objective beauty.</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But if someone made such a claim, he would have the burden of backing
it up.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moreover, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
that’s the position of someone who </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">also
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">maintains that objective
beauty does exist, </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">then
he’s committed to a claim about exobiology ranging across the
whole universe</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">, namely
the claim that aliens like species#2 do not exist. </SPAN><A HREF="#species2"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#species2">2</A><A HREF="#species2">2</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
why should anyone believe that they have such knowledge about
exobiology? </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">And
why should we believe that he does? </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">Let’s leave exobiology aside </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">for
now</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">and </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">turn
to cloning. W</SPAN>hat if someone managed to clone <I>Neanderthals</I>?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It’s difficult, but with sufficient technology, it might just
be doable. Granted, it may be immoral, but that does not mean it’s
nomologically impossible, or even that it won’t happen.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, let’s say that someone clones some Neanderthals.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It seems clear that Neanderthals are uglier, compared to modern
humans, and all other things equal. For instance, young, healthy
Neanderthals are uglier than young, healthy, modern humans, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In fact, all Neanderthals are quite ugly, even though some
Neanderthals are uglier than other Neanderthals.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
On the other hand, on average, modern humans are Neanderthal-uglier
than Neanderthals. In other words, Neanderthals are more
Neanderthal-beautiful than modern humans are, all other things equal
– that’s almost certain.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In addition, there <I>might </I>be differences between beauty and
Neanderthal-beauty when it comes to, say, landscapes. I take no
stance on that particular issue, but in any case, none of that would
seem to be a problem for objective beauty.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="beauty2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>8. Craig’s take on beauty and
evolution. More extraterrestrials, and more Neanderthals. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In an objection to the metaethical argument, the example of beauty
was used in an attempt to undermine the second premise, or at least
the reliability of our sense of right and wrong, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In his reply, Craig makes a number of claims and implication about
beauty and evolution [r<A HREF="#r12">12</A>], including the
implication that if our sense of beauty comes from evolution without
God, then that undermines either our belief that objective beauty
exists, or at least the reliability of our appreciation of it.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
As the examples given in the <A HREF="#beauty">previous section</A>
illustrate, there seems to be no good reason to believe so.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
On the other hand, the scenarios given in the previous section would
seem to be a serious challenge to <I>Craig’s</I> stance on
beauty.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For instance, it seems that Craig’s views entail that if
something like<A HREF="#beauty"> species#2</A> does exist, either
there is no objective beauty, or at the very least one of the two
species – i.e., species#2 or humans – has a massively
unreliable sense of beauty, and there would appear to be no good
reason to trust the human one.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Yet, Craig’s position is that objective beauty does exist, and
that the human sense of beauty is at least generally reliable. But
that <I>seems to commit Craig to a wide-ranging claim about
exobiology, namely that nothing like species#2 evolved anywhere in
the universe. </I><A HREF="#species2">[</A><A HREF="#species2">2</A><A HREF="#species2">2</A>]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
I suppose someone might suggest that if God exists, there is no
undermining even if such aliens do exist, and our sense of beauty is
still generally reliable. But that would not work, because as long as
Craig rejects the distinction between beauty judgments and
species#2-beauty judgments, then either <I>they</I> would have a
massively unreliable sense of beauty – rather than a generally
reliable sense of species#2-beauty -, or <I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">we</SPAN></I>
would have a massively unreliable sense of beauty.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But that would seem to take away any good reason to think we got the
right sense of beauty even assuming God existed – why think God
preferred us, rather than the aliens he also created?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In any case, it seems that one way or another, Craig’s position
commits him to a universe-wide exobiology claim on the matter: either
a claim that nothing like species#2 exists in the whole universe, or
that if they do, they have a massively unreliable sense.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
moreover, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
claims that it </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
be somehow anomalous, given an evolutionary account of our sense of
beauty – without God – that we </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">appreciate
beauty in other species, not just humans, or in humans of the same
sex, etc. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
h</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">claims
are </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on
evolution </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">mistaken,
for </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
number of reasons, such as the following ones: </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>1.</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the case of humans of the
same sex, there </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">may well
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">have </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">en</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">an advantage –</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
i.e., on balance, in the ancestral environment, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
was conducive to reproductive success – </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
be</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ing</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
able to </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">make assessments of
beauty </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of individuals of the
same sex, given that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">potential
mates of the opposite-sex </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">were
able</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"> make them</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That would allow both men
and women to compare themselves with potential competitors, predict
behavior of potential mates, etc.</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">factor </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
surely not the whole story, even if </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
may have played some role. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
There are more general considerations about evolution that Craig is
missing, like the following point:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>2.</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Adaptations</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that were </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on balance</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
conducive to reproductive success in the ancestral environment </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">often</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
had side effects th</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">were
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not relevant to fitness and
sometimes, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
side effects that, on their own, would have been detrimental </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
terms of fitness</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but resulted from the same
gene mutations that conferred advantages that offset </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">those
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">disadvantages</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in that environment, etc.</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Also, in some cases, there may be some traits that would be on
balance slightly detrimental to reproductive success today, but were
not so in the past, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">example</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of some of the traits in
some of the previous categories</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we find </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
artificial sweeteners sweet </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but
there was no advantage to that. It’s a consequence of
adaptations to other things. Also, there </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">was</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">no advantage in finding
lethal antifreeze tasty, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">though
there was no disadvantage in an environment with no antifreeze, etc.
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The same goes for other
animals. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For instance, many
animals find ethanol very appealing, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
so on. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I don’t know </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">all
of the causes we </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">appreciate
beauty in other animals. It </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">may</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
have something to do with our ability to perceive good health, and
perhaps a number of other traits, but that’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">speculative. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However, in any case, the point
here is that</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"> Craig’s
objection is not warranted. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">More
precisely, his claims are based on a misunderstanding of present-day
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">evolutionary biology</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
which result in mistaken predictions about what would result from an
evolutionary process that occurs by the mechanisms posited by modern
science and nothing else. On that note: </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>3.</B> Craig’s objection is a bold claim or implication
about human biology and evolution.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Essentially, he’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s
implying</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"> that the
evolutionary process, only by the mechanisms posited by science –
or very similar ones – would </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
result in the mental traits that we observe in humans. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
that note, he clearly implies that if our appraisal of beauty in the
opposite sex were the result of natural selection, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">young
woman with a big nose and a harelip” </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
look as beautiful to him as a fashion model. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">There are </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">several
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objections one may </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">raise
to that claim</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">, but I will
focus on </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">one,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">which is in any case
decisive</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">: Craig </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">bases
his assessment on the false assumption that non-theistic </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">evolution
would result in sexual attraction being equal given equal </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">potential
to be fertile</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">. But that
isn’t how </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">natural
selection</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"> works</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Surely, it's not just the number of potential offspring that counts,
but many other factors, such as that potential offspring's chances in
turn to reproduce, which depend </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">also
on a number of different factors, including their ability to attract
mates with genes that would give them a good chance of reproductive
success, and so on. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, there are many causes for the overall, on-average attractiveness
of some traits, such as the fact that they may be cues to good
health, etc., or sexual selection, and a long etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
seems to be </SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">very
</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">confused
about natural selection, and generally about the mechanisms of
evolution proposed by present-day science. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
any case, and with respect to sexual attraction, we m</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ay,
of course, also take a look at </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">sue
of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">potential
or actual</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
variations from species to species. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
may consider the case of, say, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">warthogs.
They’re ugly. Yet, they do not seem to be particularly
attracted to much more beautiful animals, but rather, to other ugly
warthogs. The same </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">seems
to go</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
for </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="http://www.china.org.cn/top10/2013-03/21/content_28317819.htm">a</A><A HREF="http://www.china.org.cn/top10/2013-03/21/content_28317819.htm"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ll</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/top-20-ugliest-animals-time-gallery-1.1276977">other</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="https://encrypted.google.com/#gs_rn=14&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=AlThrjA9llNzEay33pPYUg&cp=10&gs_id=2t&xhr=t&q=ugly+animals&es_nrs=true&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=ugly+anima&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.dmQ&fp=485fc16f0e7b3da8&biw=800&bih=417">ugly
animals</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Of
course, that’s not remotely surprising </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given
evolution by the mechanisms accepted by present-day science, or very
similar ones. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
aside, we may consider another example that poses a se</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">rious
challenge to Craig’s views on beauty and evolution</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Neanderthals.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">What
if someone were to bring them back, by means of cloning? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Then, one may consider the statement:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>HN:</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Adult, healthy modern humans are more beautiful than adult, healthy
Neanderthals. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Since objective beauty does exist – as Craig maintains, and as
I concede for the sake of the argument -, there is an objective fact
of the matter as to whether HN is true. Since – as Craig
implicitly indicates – our sense of beauty is generally
reliable, chances are that our sense of beauty is correct and that HN
is true.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But let’s say that we ask Neanderthals. Assuming no distinction
between beauty and Neanderthal-beauty – a distinction that
Craig’s position seems incompatible with -, they’re
almost certainly going to make the wrong assessment, namely that HN
is false. But why should one think that Neanderthals had such a
defective sense of beauty? How do we know we didn’t get the
defective sense in the first place?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Perhaps, someone might claim that Neanderthals would not be able to
learn a sufficiently sophisticated language and would not understand
the question. But that would be a claim about Neanderthal biology
that would be in need of defending. Moreover, it’s hard to see
how that would even matter.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Also, someone might suggest that there are [or were, depending on the
case] beautiful modern humans, and beautiful Neanderthals, but not
comparable, beauty-wise. But the problems is that our sense of beauty
tells us that Neanderthals<I> were </I>comparable with modern humans,
and they were uglier, even assuming in both cases young and healthy
individuals.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In light of the previous considerations, we can tell that Craig's
stances on beauty, evolution, and the relations between them are all
mistaken.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="morality0"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>9. Morality, evolution, and evolutionary
counterfactuals.</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
support of the first premise, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
argues against what he derogatorily calls ‘herd morality’
- </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">humans
never lived in herds, and neither did their ape ancestors, but never
mind that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-,
and makes a number of claims: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r11"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r11"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r11"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
particular, he claims </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
if</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
“moral values are </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">just
the product of biological and social evolution”, those “really
aren’t moral values”, but “simply conditions under
which the human species will flourish”.</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Leaving
aside derogatory </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">words
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">like</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just’,
‘simply’ </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
several others he uses </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that context, like ‘herd morality’, etc.,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">one
may reply that: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
The </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">word
‘social’ seems to indicate </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">something
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">other
than biological evolution, and might suggest that the view he’s
arguing against supports some form of cultural relativism. That does
not have to be the case, since a non-theist may well hold that the
sense </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
right and wrong and good and evil</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#badrwrong2"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#badrwrong2">1</A><A HREF="#badrwrong2">2</A><A HREF="#badrwrong2">]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
the product of biological evolution, even if it needs some
environment to develop – like all </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
our </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">traits</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
do</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-,
and even if the ancestral environment that led to their evolution
included prominently a social environment. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">sense
of right and wrong and of good and evil</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#badrwrong2">[</A><A HREF="#badrwrong2">1</A><A HREF="#badrwrong2">2</A><A HREF="#badrwrong2">]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><B>not</B></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on
such evolutionary accounts</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
“</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">conditions
in which the human species will</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">flourish”,
but rather, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">result</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">an
adaptation </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
combination of adaptations that were </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on
balance</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
conducive to reproductive success in the ancestral environment.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">While,
on those accounts, humans will develop a certain language –
like moral language – due to some features of human biology –
and, perhaps, some aliens would develop a different language -,
evolution only plays a role in the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etiology</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of those features, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
so only indirectly in the development of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">language.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
none of the above tells us that our judgments like ‘the
Holocaust was immoral’ would not be objective judgments, or
that all judgments like ‘X is immoral’, for an actual X,
would be false, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on
such a non-theistic evolutionary view. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1.c.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
It is true that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">accounts
of this kind</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
might</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">also</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
posit that there's always be a moral obligation to behave in a way
conducive to human flourishing. Those accounts </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
be</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">mistaken</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
as we can tell by means of setting up a number of scenarios in
thought experiments in which it's clearly not morally obligatory to
behave in a way conducive to human flourishing, and even scenarios in
which it's morally obligatory to behave in ways not conducive to
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">human
flourishing</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
at all. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><B>not</B></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
case that, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
general</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
according to these kinds of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">evolutionary
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">accounts</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– which actually use evolution as a source of our mental
faculties, but not as a means of setting up </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral
obligations, which depend on mental faculties, however we got to have
them -</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there would always be a moral obligation to behave in a way conducive
to human flourishing.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>d</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">claims
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
sociopath who rejects what he calls the ‘herd morality’,
would not be doing anything morally wrong on that view. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
for that matter, someone might say </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
if </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">our
‘herd color’ evolved, then </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
would be nothing </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">red</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
about ‘</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">stop</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">’
traffic lights </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on
a similar non-theistic evolutionary view, or that on such a view,
there would be nothing ugly about warthogs</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
if our 'herd beauty' evolved. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Upon
reflection, I see no good reason to believe either </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig’s
claim about the sociopath, or the parallel </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">claims
about color or </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ugliness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or that the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">mistaken</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
accounts that posit that there is always a moral obligation to act in
a way conducive to human flourishing have </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">any</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
problem with </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objectivity.
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Rather,
the problem </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">with
such accounts </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
that that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">they
make a false universal first-order </SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ethical</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
claim</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">F</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
that matter,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">theories
involving ethical and metaethical claims that posit that there is
always a moral obligation to believe that Jesus is lord and savior,
at least for adult humans </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">who
have read the Gospel and some others</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
also make a false universal first-order ethical claim, but do not
have any problem with objectivity. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in addition to the above, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
maintains that i</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">f
we could rewind evolution, then a different entity with a
considerably different set of moral values </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
duties </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">might
have resulted instead of humans, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
if </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">so,
neither their values nor ours would be right.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
does not do anything to establish </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">his</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
claims. For instance: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2.a</SPAN></SPAN></B><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Those
entities would have had to resolve problems similar to the ones our
ancestors faced, so maybe there would not be such variation after
all, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
the initial conditions are the same</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><B><A HREF="#determined2">[23</A>]</B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2.b</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
has not explained why, assuming that there </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">might
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
such differences </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
we could rewind evolution</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
provide</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
any evidence in support of the claim that without God, objective
moral values and duties do not exist. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">F</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
example</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we may </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">consider</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the same argument about rewinding evolution in the case of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#color">color
vision</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
But as the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">relevantly
similar </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">example
of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#color">species#1</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
illustrates, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
provide no evidence against the existence of objective color without
God</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Craig provides no </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">argument
in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">this
context in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
support of the claim that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
would make a difference in the case of moral</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ity;
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">rather,
he seems to assume that the example of rewinding evolution helps his
case. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="morality"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>10. Morality and exobiology I. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
also</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
considers some examples of aliens from the Andromeda galaxy who come
to Earth and attack, either raping and killing humans, or eating</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">humans.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#andromeda">2</A><A HREF="#andromeda">4</A><A HREF="#andromeda"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
Craig has not shown that evolution would not be convergent in the
case of morality, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least for social entities. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
we may grant that there is such difference. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
l</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">et’s say</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>
</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">fo</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r
the sake of the argument</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">that
the aliens </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">in question – say,
species#3 – </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">evolved </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">very
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">differently, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">but
they do have </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">a sense more or less similar
to our sense of right and wrong, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">and to our
sense of </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">good and ba</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">d</SPAN><A HREF="#badrwrong2"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#badrwrong2">1</A><A HREF="#badrwrong2">2</A><A HREF="#badrwrong2">]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">;
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">those
faculties are similar to ours in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">the
way </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">using them</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">normally </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">feels to
them, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">in</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">the
role that </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">they </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">play
in discussions about what to do </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">in their
society</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">, etc., </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">but
associated with different behaviors and/or situations, entities, etc.</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
In particular, their sense of species#3-right and species#3-wrong
does not associate any negative evaluation with their actions of
invading the Earth and eating humans.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
So, let’s say that they invade the Earth and eat humans. <A HREF="#nostance">[2</A><A HREF="#nostance">5</A><A HREF="#nostance">]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
Speaking of those scenarios, Craig claims:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>Craig: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
“I think this extraterrestrial illustration is a very powerful
illustration that, in the absence of God, human morality isn’t
objective. It has no more claim to be objective than some
extraterrestrial alien morality.”</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">Before I address </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">those
claims</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">, and on a terminological note, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">i</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">n
the cases of </SPAN><A HREF="#color">color</A><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
and </SPAN><A HREF="#beauty2">beauty</A><SPAN LANG="en-US">, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">I
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">used the terms “color”</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">- rather than “human color” -</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">as opposed to</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
“species#1-color”, and “beauty” </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">-
rather than “human beauty” -</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">as
opposed to</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> “species#</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">2</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">-beauty”,
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">respectively. </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">Similarly</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
I will here use “morality” - rather than “human
morality”, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">which Craig </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">uses</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">-,
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">as opposed to</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
“species#3-morality”</SPAN><A HREF="#species1color"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#species1color"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#species1color"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">7</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#species1color"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
respectively. </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">But that’s merely
terminology. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">So, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">in the excerpt
quoted above, Craig makes </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">at least </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">two
claims. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>1.</B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> A claim that
the extraterrestrial examples show that, without God, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">o</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">bjectiv</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">e
moral values and duties do not exist. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>2.</B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> A claim that
without God, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">human </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">morality</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
has no more claim to be objective than some extraterrestrial morality
– with the terminology I introduce above, that would be
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">morality and </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">species#3</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">-</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">morality
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">in the example in question, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">respectively.
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
What to make of those claims?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">In the case of claim 1., Craig does not explain
whether that alien example is supposed to show that </SPAN><A HREF="#OMVD">OMVD1</A><SPAN LANG="en-US">
is not true without God, or that </SPAN><A HREF="#OMVD">OMVD2</A><SPAN LANG="en-US">
is not true. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">But in any event, Craig </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">seems
to </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">provide no</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
reason to suspect that </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">objective moral
values and duties would not exist, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>in
the sense of ‘objective’ </I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>used
by Craig in his metaethical argument, </I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">just
because of the alien example. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">To be clear, I’m
not </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">claiming</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that there is no technical sense of ‘objective’ used in
philosophy, in which the alien example would not show that morality
would not be objective. But the relevant point here is that the alien
examples do not show that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">without
God</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
say, whether the Holocaust was morally wrong </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">has
anything to do with what anyone –</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
human or alien – </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">believes
and so, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>in the sense of
‘objective’ relevant to Craig’s metaethical
argument. </I></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
If someone claimed otherwise, they would have to argue that point.
But it’s not illustrated by the example, as Craig presents it.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">As for claim 2., assuming sufficient similarity
between our moral sense and species#3-moral sense in terms of how
they feel it, work, etc. - except that associated with different
behaviors, situations, etc. -, then claim 2. seems to be </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">plausibly
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">true,</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">just
as species#1-color and species#2-beauty </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
also objective. But that does nothing to establish the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">first</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
premise. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Granted, someone might claim that the case of morality is relevantly
different from the case of color and/or from the case of beauty,
etc., but that would have to be argued for.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In particular,
someone might claim that the difference is that judgments of beauty,
and also moral judgments, are evaluative judgments, but color
judgments are not. However, in that case, they would have to explain
in what sense and/or how there is an evaluative component </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>that
is relevant to the matter of objectivity, in the sense in which Craig
uses the word ‘objective’</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
burden </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
be on the claimant. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Also, someone might claim – for instance – that the
<I>meaning</I> of moral terms is such that moral judgments have
ontological commitments incompatible with the existence of something
like species#3-morality, and so that if such species, or a relevantly
similar one, existed, then all judgments of the form ‘X is
immoral’, ‘X is morally good’, etc., would be
objective but all <I>false, </I>or some other variant.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, that would be a matter of moral <I>semantics</I> that would
have to be argued for as well. As it stands, upon reflection, I see
no good reason to think that that is so.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="contact"></A>
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On that note,
let’s consid</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">er
the following scenario: </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Millions of years
into the future, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">humans
or post-human beings</SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#post"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#post">1</A><A HREF="#post">4</A><A HREF="#post">]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">make
contact with intelligent social </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">aliens.
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Humans
or post-humans are more advanced, so even though the aliens turn out
to be hostile, they can be handled. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Now, after
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">studying
the aliens</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
[post]-humans figure out that the aliens </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">do
not have a </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">sense
of right and wrong and good or bad</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
but something more or less </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">similar
to them in the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">way
outlined earlier. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
I doubt that millions of years into the future, [post]-human beings
would believe that God exists, but regardless of what they believe on
that matter, it seems intuitively clear that they would not and
should not consider their findings about the aliens evidence
supporting the conclusion that the Holocaust was not immoral.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
In fact, the immorality of the Holocaust and exobiology seem to be
<I>orthogonal</I> matters, regardless of theistic belief.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
At least, upon reflection, I do not see any good reason to believe
otherwise, and Craig does not seem to provide any.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
All that aside, and as an alternative objection, a theist might raise
the issue of genetic engineering.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
What if someone made genetically modified humans, say GM-humans#3,
with a slightly different sense or senses, instead of a sense of
right and wrong, or good or evil?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
They wouldn’t be something completely alien like species#3, but
something very similar to humans, but not quite the same.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
A problem I see with that scenario is that such modifications might
result in conflicts between different parts of the mind, unless
perhaps the changes are massive. But leaving that aside, I will
address the matter of entities that are very similar to humans but
not quite the same in the section dedicated to <A HREF="#twinearth">Moral
Twin Earth scenarios</A>. The genetic engineering cases, assuming
they’re nomologically possible, would be handled in the same
fashion.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="badthings"></A><A NAME="objection"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Mora</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>lity
an</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>d
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>exobiology
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>II</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Some
objections. </B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In the </SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#morality">previous
section</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, I
argued that Craig’s argument from extraterrestrials fails to
support his conclusion.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
this section, I will consider some objections, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
offer </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">some</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
replies, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">but
before I go on, and t</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">o
be clear, I do not claim that Craig would raise the same objections
or similar one</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Objection 11.1: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<I><SPAN LANG="en-US">If something like species#3 existed, invaded
Earth and ate humans, they would clearly be acting immorally. </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">Even
science</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> fiction examples illustrate that
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">aliens that attack like that are behaving
immorally</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">. </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">In
other words, they ought to refrain from eating humans. </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">But
the previous analysis indicates that, without God, they would not be
acting immorally, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">contradicting our </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">moral
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">intuitions. </SPAN></I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Reply: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
The </SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#morality">previous analysis </A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
not committed to the question of whether </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">species#3
aliens who invade the Earth and attack humans </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
be acting immorally. It’s compatible with at least </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
following </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">two
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">views</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>1.a.</B> The aliens are acting immorally, but they do not have a
sense that allows them to know that. They are not acting
species#3-immorally, though.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1.b.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
The</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
aliens are </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">not
be acting immorally. In fact, nothing that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">they
do is</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
immoral. Some of the things they</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
do might be </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">species#3-imm</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">o</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ral,
but </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">invading
Earth and </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">eating
humans</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
are not among t</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">hem.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I do not think
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
1.a.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
is the right view, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">though,
but other non-theists might not have any views on the matter, and
that does not seem to be a problem either way. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Of course, even
if 1.b. is the proper interpretation – which I find plausibly
correct -</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
does </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">not
mean that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
situation consisting in </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">aliens</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
of species#3</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">eating
humans is not a bad </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">situation</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n
the sense in which, say, the situations consisting in </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">crocodile</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
eating </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">young
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">children
or </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">young
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">children
slowly dying </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
cancer are bad </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">situations
–</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
though not morally bad, as far as I can tell, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">if
no moral agent is responsible </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">-</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">we
may </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">properly
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">say
the event or situation consisting of </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">species#3
aliens eating humans is a ba</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d
situation or event</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On the other
hand, in </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
scenario, plausibly </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
event or situation consisting in a</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">liens
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
species#3</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">eating
humans </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
n</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ot
a species#3-bad </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">situation
of event</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
–</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">assuming
they have so</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">mething
akin to that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">good/bad
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">distinction
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">but
associated with different situations, etc.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
-</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and perhaps </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">eating
humans is</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
even</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
a species#3-good </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">situation
or event</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">though
that would not imply </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
eating humans is</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
species#3-morally</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">-</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">obligatory.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
claim tha</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">t</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it’s
clear that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">those
aliens</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
would be acting immorally </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
implausible</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
In fact, while the </SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#morality">previous
analysis </A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
not committed to the question of whether </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">species#3
aliens who invade the Earth and </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">eat</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
humans </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
be acting immorally, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">after
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">reflection,
it seems plausible that they </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>wouldn’t
</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">be
acting immorally. </SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#intuitions"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#intuitions"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#intuitions"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">6</SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#intuitions"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
They do not have a sense of right and wrong that would tell them </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
immoral, even </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">under</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
ideal conditions. They do not seem to have </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>the
right kind of mind </I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
behave immorally, as far as I can tell.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As for science
fiction aliens, they’re </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">often</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
made in the writers’ image, so to speak.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In other words,
ev</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">en
though those fictional agents </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[fictionally]
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">evolved
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">on</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
different planets, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>where</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
they evolved is not the issue, but rather, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>what
kind of mind they have</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">F</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or
that matter, many of those </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">fictional
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">aliens
feel sexual attraction towards humans</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
because writers usually make them with human-like minds, even though
in case of contact we should expect aliens not to be –</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
normally, at least – </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">sexually
attracted towards humans. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On the other
hand, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">someone
may have come up with some</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
fictional advanced aliens that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">do</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
not have moral obligations – </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">some</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
fiction</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s
may not be</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
specific enough to determine that. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">This is not to
say that real aliens would never have moral obligations. If the
universe is sufficiently big, there might be aliens that evolved with
minds like ours, including a sense of right and wrong and good or
evil – rather than the species#3 analogue, or </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">anything</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
like it. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>3. </B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
aside, according to Craig, God exists and a creature’s moral
obligations are God’s commands. If so, then if species#3
evolved on some planet – guided by God, perhaps -, then it
seems that those aliens would </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>not
</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">have a
moral obligation not to eat humans, since they do not </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">have
a sense of right and wrong that tells them not to eat humans, and
then plausibly God would have not commanded them not to eat humans.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So, it seems that
even on Craig’s theory, if those aliens existed, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
any case </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">they
would not have a moral obligation not to eat humans. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
then, why would it be a problem for non-theists if, on non-theism,
those aliens plausibly would not have a moral obligation not to eat
humans? </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Granted, a theist
might claim that such aliens </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or
relevantly similar ones </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
metaphysically impossible, but that in particular entails that th</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ose
aliens, or </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">any</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
relevantly similar </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">aliens</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">do
not exist </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">anywhere
in the universe</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">which</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
a wide-ranging claim about exobiology, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">encompassing
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
entire universe. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Why
should we believe that a theist has such knowledge of exobiology? </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Objection 11.2: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<I>On that kind of evolutionary account, who is to say that it’s
not morally obligatory for individuals of species#3 or a relevantly
similar species to invade the Earth and eat humans because they like
the way humans taste? </I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Reply: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
We can tell by <I>our </I>sense of right and wrong that that would
not be a <I>moral</I> obligation for them, or for anyone. That would
not be <I>morality</I>, and we can tell because we’re the ones
with the sense of right and wrong, not aliens of species#3. Those
aliens have a sense of <I>species#3-right </I>and <I>species#3-wrong,
</I>but that’s a different thing, like species#1-color vision
is not color vision, and a sense of species#2-beauty is not a sense
of beauty.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
That aside, it’s not at all clear to me that natural selection
in our universe would favor something as different from our moral
sense as what is proposed here – though almost certainly it
would if the universe has infinitely many planets.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
I’m just granting that for the sake of the argument. But even
if they did have a <I>species#3-moral</I><I>-o</I><I>bligation</I> to
invade the Earth and eat humans, that is not a <I>moral </I>obligation
to do so.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For example, let’s consider the following scenario as an
analogy:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let’s
say – which is very plausible – that humans have a
species-wide very similar perception of colors – i.e., no
inverted color spectrum, etc. Let’s also stipulate that there
is an intelligent social alien species, species#</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">which</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
has a species-wide </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">p</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">erception
of species#</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">color</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#species1color"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#species1color"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#species1color"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#species1color">]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">nd
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
particular, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">they
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">normally
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">perceive
objects that emit light in wavelengths between </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">3</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">20nm
and 370nm in a way </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">very
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">similar
to the way in which humans normally perceive objects that emit light
in wavelengths between 520nm and 570nm, in other words, like we
perceive objects that emit green light. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Something
similar goes for reflective properties – i.e., objects that
reflect some wavelengths under such-and-such conditions, instead of
objects that emits them.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let
O4 be an object that emits light in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">wavelengths</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
between 335nm and 342nm, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
no other wavelengths.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In that scenario, O4 emits species#4-green light, but it does not
emit green light. Species#4-green is not green at all. And similarly,
having a species#3-moral-obligation is not the same as having a moral
obligation, just as, say, being species#4-green is not the same as
being green</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Objection 11.3</B></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<I>On that kind of evolutionary account, let’s say that some
species#3 aliens have a species#3-moral-obligation to invade the
Earth and eat humans. <B>Should</B> they do it? </I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Reply: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">I</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">t’s not the case
that they </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>morally </I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">should</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">do it. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">However, it may well be that they </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>rationally
</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">should </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">attack
and eat humans</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> – it depends on the
case. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It might be that they have <I>reasons </I>to invade the Earth and eat
humans, but have <I>no reasons </I>not to – even if it is
immoral of them to attack (which seems implausible to me for the
reasons I’ve been explaining, but let’s say so), morality
does not give <I>them </I>any reasons.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">Also, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">there might be
some term</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">in
their language</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> – </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">let’s</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
call it </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">‘species</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">#3-</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">should’</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
– </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">that </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">is
not a synonym of any term that we use, but which </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">plays
a function </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">in their language </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">somewhat</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
similar to </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">the function </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">of
the moral “should” among us</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
and </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">maybe it </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">i</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">s
the case that </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">they </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>species#3-should
</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">invade, etc. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, just as ‘species#4-green’ does not mean the same
as ‘green’, and ‘species#2-beautiful’ does
not mean the same as ‘beautiful’, also ‘species#3-should’
does not mean the same as ‘should’, in the moral sense of
‘should’, nor does it mean the same as any term in
English or in any other human language. But to be clear, when I say
‘species#3-should’, I'm not saying that the meaning of
the term has a built-in reference to the species. Rather, I’m
using ‘species#3' merely to indicate that it’s a term
used by aliens of that particular species, and which has no synonyms
in English or other human languages.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Also, as I pointed out earlier, I’m assuming at this particular
point and only <I>for the sake of the argument</I> that there might
be that kind of huge divergence between different species, even if
they’re all intelligent social species that evolved without any
designer. Whether that is actually the case is an exobiology question
whose answer I don’t know, so I’m taking no stance. <I>If</I>
a theist <I>is </I>taking a stance, he should defend his exobiology
claim.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Objection 11.4. </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<I>There can be no such thing as ‘species#3-should’. <B>If
</B>there were a term ‘should’ in the alien language that
plays a function in their language somewhat similar to the function
of ‘should’ in the moral sense of ‘should’
among humans, then it actually means the same. The same for other
terms. </I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Reply: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Going by my intuitive grasp of the terms, it seems very implausible
to me that the meaning of our moral terms is like that.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, <I>assuming for the sake of the argument </I>that<I> </I>the
terms would mean the same as this rejoinder holds – which I
reject -,<I> </I>and also <I>assuming for the sake</I><I> of the
argument </I>that there is or there might be such huge variations
between species – a matter on which I take no stance -, and
further assuming for the sake of the argument that species#3 actually
evolved<I>, </I>then there would seem to be two distinct
possibilities:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>a. </B>Species#3 aliens plausibly would have a sense of right and
wrong generally reliable as a means of ascertaining the moral
obligations of individuals <I>of their species, </I>whereas we humans
have a sense of right and wrong generally reliable as a means of
ascertaining the moral obligations of humans.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
This might result in moral obligations to eat us, etc., which would
be counterintuitive.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>b. </B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A moral error theory is
true. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But I have no good reason to believe our moral terms are like that at
all.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
On the other hand, a theist raising objections 11.3 and 11.4 would
seem to be committed to a position that entails the disjunction of
the following options:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>c.</B> Aliens like that do not exist.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>d. </B>Aliens like that are have a vastly unreliable sense of
right and wrong.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>e</B>. Aliens like that have a moral obligation to eat us if they
find us in a situation like the one outlined above, or similar
obligations.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, <B>c. </B>is a statement about exobiology ranging across the
whole universe, and there is no evidence for that; <B>e.</B> is very
counterintuitive, and <B>d.</B> seems unjustified – why would
<I>their </I>moral sense be the flawed one? -, and also has the
following problem if the theist supports Divine Command Theory: If
the moral obligations of those aliens are God’s commands, how
does God give them commands if they have such a vastly unreliable
sense of right and wrong?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
As I mentioned, I see no good reason to think that our moral language
is like that. On the contrary, I think it’s definitely not like
that at all, and the aliens in question would be talking about
something else.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><SPAN LANG="en-US">Objection </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">1</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">1</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">.</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">5</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">:
</SPAN></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<I><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">B</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">eings
with </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
human level of intelligence or superior but with </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">no
moral obligations are </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">metaphysically
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">impossible</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">with
the possible exception of Go</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">d,
who does not have any moral </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">obligations
because an entity’s moral obligations are God’s commands,
and God is not giving binding commands to himself. </SPAN></SPAN></I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Reply: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>1</B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>. </B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">Leaving
aside the odd exception for God </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">and the odd
theistic metaethics</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">, t</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">he
scenario involving species#3 </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">seems to me
plausibly a case in which some beings with a human level of
intelligence or superior would not have moral obligations, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">though
I need not take a stance here</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">. A claim tha</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">t
either they’re metaphysically impossible or that they would
have moral obligations seems to place a burden on the claimant. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="cyborg2"></A>
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>2.</B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">Let’s
consid</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">er the following scenario:</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">On a different planet, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">another
alien species – say, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">species#</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">5</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
–</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> evolved</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">.
Those aliens are very advanced, and eventually, by means of a
combination genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, some
reckless individuals </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">of that species</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
make a</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">n</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">ultra</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">-intelligent
cyborg, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">even </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">far
more intelligent than species#</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">5</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
aliens. As it turns out, the cyborg – which is not a social
being, does not care about any other being, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">and
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">does not even have anything </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>akin
</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">to </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">the sense
of right and wrong</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> – </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">wipes
out species#</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">5</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">for
its own benefit, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">and in accordance to its
values. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">It</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> then goes on to use
the resources of that planetary system, and starts working towards
becoming more powerful, even if that will lead it to attack and
destroy other intelligent beings in </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">other
planetary systems in the future. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">I</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">n that scenario, it
seems </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">even more </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">intuitive
to me that the cyborg does not have any </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>moral</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
obligations. </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">Plausibly, nothing the cyborg
does </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">is morally wrong, or obligatory, or
praiseworthy, or morally anything. </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">This
does not mean that the cyborg does not have </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>reasons
</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">for acting, or that </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">it’s</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
not the case that it </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>should</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">rationally </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">do X –
for some X. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">But </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">it’s</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
not the case that the cyborg </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>morally
</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">ought to do X or not to do X, for any
X. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">That would be my </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">assessment</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
but </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">I do not need to claim that </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">in
this context. Instead, it’s enough to point out that a </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">claim
that either such a cyborg is impossible or it would have moral
obligations would seem to place a burden on the claimant. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">All that</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> said, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">as
far as I can tell </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">a non-theist need not
take a stance on whether such aliens, or the cyborg, would have moral
obligations</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">. </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">If
the cyborg did have moral obligations, it seems plausible that it
often rationally ought to do what it morally ought not to do –
and in any case, it would not care -, but as before, this does not
seem to be a problem. The problem seems to be for those claiming
otherwise. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Objection
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">6</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<I><SPAN LANG="en-US">If </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">our sense </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">of
right and wrong </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">comes from evolution
without God, then there are no moral obligations. How </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">could</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
a mindless process impose a moral obligation? </SPAN></I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Reply: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">That is a different kind of </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">question</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
not directly related to the part of Craig’s argument I
addressed above, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">but that aside: </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>1.</B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> T</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">he
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">evolutionary process would not be </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>imposing</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
anything except in a figurative sense. </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">Moral
agents ar</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">e agents </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">with
some kind of </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>mind</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
however they came to exist, whether by evolution or by some </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">other
means. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">In other words. as long as the evolutionary
processes </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">or any other process results in</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
minds of the right kind, those entities might be morally good, bad,
behave immorally – and hence, have moral obligations, etc. </SPAN><A HREF="#religions"><SPAN LANG="en-US">[2</SPAN></A><A HREF="#religions"><SPAN LANG="en-US">7</SPAN></A><A HREF="#religions"><SPAN LANG="en-US">]</SPAN></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In fact, this is intuitively clear, and it illustrates another
problem with Craig’s metaethical argument, namely that it has a
conclusion that flies on the face of moral intuitions.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For instance, we may set up a scenario in which God does not exist,
and Jack kills children just for entertainment. Intuitively, it’s
clear that in that scenario, Jack would be acting immorally. The
presence of God is orthogonal to it. I will get back to this point
<A HREF="#craignoexplain">later</A>.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>2</B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">. While a theist
might claim that the evolutionary process would not result in minds,
or in the right kind of mind, that’s a claim that he would have
to argue for. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Objection
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">7</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<I><SPAN LANG="en-US">There cannot be such thing as
species#3-morality. There is only morality. If </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">species
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">l</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">ike species#3
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">evolved</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> on
different planets, then at most one intelligent social species would
have the true morality, and all of the rest would be morally confused
by a vastly flawed </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">sense of right and
wrong, and of good and evil. </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">But then, what
would be the reason for believing that our </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">faculties
are the reliable ones, rather than the faculties of som</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">e
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">aliens</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">? </SPAN></I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Reply: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
As in previous cases, whoever made such a claim would have to argue
for it. As it stands, after reflection, I see no good reason to
believe so.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In fact, it seems highly counterintuitive, as the <A HREF="#contact">contact</A>
example indicates.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, also as before, someone who maintains that we do have a
reasonably reliable moral sense yet raises objection 11.7, is
committed to a claim that there are no aliens relevantly similar to
species#3 in the whole universe.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="twinearth"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>12. Morality and exobiology III. Moral Twin
Earth.</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I argued </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
previous sections </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
does not establish that his </SPAN><A HREF="#morality"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">alien
examples</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"> support P1. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
are other arguments a theist might make, also involving entities with
something similar to a moral sense in some ways, but not quite the
same. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On that note, I think</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
an interesting case </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
consider </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would be</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some of the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moral
Twin Earth </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">examples</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in particular the
scenarios </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">presented by
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Horgan and Timmons </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
papers like “New Wave Moral Realism Meets Moral Twin
Earth”</SPAN><A HREF="#r14"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r14]</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“Analytical
Functionalism Meets Moral Twin Earth”. </SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><B><A HREF="#r15">r15</A></B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Even
though Horgan and Timmons use the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">examples
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
a </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">very
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">different
context, the scenarios </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">raise
the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">issue</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of aliens </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">with different
faculties, so I think they </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
plausibly</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"> relevant in </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">context </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig’s meta</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ethical
argument for theism. </SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
will focus on the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">examples
in the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">second
paper. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><B><A HREF="#r15">r15</A></B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
authors</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
explain </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
some of the differences in the “</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">m</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ature
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">f</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">olk
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">m</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">orality”
of humans and Twin Earthers </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">respectively,
result from some species-wide </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">psychological
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">differences
between Earthers </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(i.e.,
humans)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and Twin Earthers. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><B><A HREF="#r15">r15</A></B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">T</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">he
reference to a “mature folk morality” is made in the
context of their reply to analytical moral functionalism –
which a non-theist </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">need
not endorse</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">;
personally, I don’t</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-,
but essentially the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">relevant
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">point
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">here
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
that </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">human
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">judgments</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
would differ from some moral or moral-like </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">judgments</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of Twin Earthers, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
a result of their different species-wide psychological makeup, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
even upon </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">careful
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">reflection</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">When presenting th</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">se
scenarios, Horgan and Timmons consider two hypotheses, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">which
essentially can be put as follows:</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="1"></A>
<B>1. </B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Twin-Earth-moral te</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">rms
cannot be properly translated into moral terms. Their meaning</SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is different. Twin
Earthers and humans would be talking past each other if they did not
realize that. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">judgments</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
made by Twin Earthers </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
Twin-Earther-moral judgments, which are</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral-like </SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">judgments,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but not actually moral
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">judgments</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="2"></A>
<B>2.</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"> There is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">no
difference in meaning, and translatio</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
between Twin Earth moral terms and human moral terms </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
appropriate. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Twin Earthers
make moral </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">judgments</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and di</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">sagreements </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
Earthers and Twin Earthers </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
genuine moral </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">disagreements</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Horgan
and Timmons claim that “</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">by
far the more natural and plausible mode of description, when one
considers the Moral Twin Earth scenario, is the second”. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#r15">r15</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
defense of that claim, the authors </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">say
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">reflection
does not result in hermeneutical pressure to interpret the terms
‘good’ and ‘right’ used by Twin Earthers as
non-translatable by their Earth counterparts in English. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
have to say that my intuitions </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">by
far </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">more
natural and plausible mode of description, when one considers the
Moral Twin Earth scenario, is the first, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
that the differences here are not in belief or theory, but in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">fact
in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">meani</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ng.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,
the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">authors</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
suggest, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
an example in support of their claim – </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
always, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">when
arguing against analytic moral functionalism </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#r15"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r15</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]
– that even after recognizing the difference </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
their respective mature folk moralities</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
members of each group (i.e., humans and Twin Earthers) would consider
that debating with the other group in a way akin to the way humans
debate moral issues with each other would be appropriate, rather than
silly. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
if the differences were in meaning rather than in theory or belief,
the members of those groups would encounter such debate </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">rather
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">silly,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">according
to the authors. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
order to analyze this claim, we needn’t assume Analytical Moral
Functionalism, but only that there is a mature folk morality </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
a mature folk Twin-Earther-morality, which differ as a result of
species-wide psychological differences between humans and Twin
Earthers. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Essentially,
what this means is that the human sense of right and wrong, and good
or evil, and the Twin Earther mental faculties that resemble them,
are similar but not the same, and are actually associated with
different classes of behaviors, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">so
the difference in some cases would persist even under ideal
reflection. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">when
it comes to cases in which </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s
known</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that the reason Twin Earthers </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">who
speak Twin Earth English </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">accept
[or reject] a judgment in Twin English but humans reject [or accept,
respectively] an orthographically identical judgment in English does
stem from some species-wide psychological differences </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
the human moral sense and the Twin Earther similar counterpart, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
would strike me as</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">very</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
silly </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
debate</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">unless
there is a good reason, as in the following scenario: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Alice
is human, and Bob is human, whereas Tom is a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">T</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">win
Earther. It might be that, under some circumstances, Tom does not
have a Twin-Earth</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">er</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-moral-obligation
not to beat Bob, and he actually has some motivation to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">beat
Bob</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
However, it might also be that in those circumstances, it’s
either morally obligatory or at least morally praiseworthy for Alice
to try to protect Bob from Tom even at the expense of confusing Tom,
and she reckons the only way she has a shot at </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">protecting
Bob </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
by persuading Tom that it would be Twin-Earth-immoral for him to beat
Bob – even though it would not be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">so,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
Alice knows it or at least suspects so</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-,
and she properly reckons Tom </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">probably
can</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">confounded</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
by </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">means
of some </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">clever
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Twin-Earther-moral-like
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">pseudo-argumentation.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
in a situation like that, it seems to me it would not be silly for
Alice to engage in such </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">debate,
though it would be</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
extremely </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">silly
for Tom – unless, perhaps, Tom also has some reason to engage
Alice, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">attempting
to</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
confuse </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">her.
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
if the intent is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
confuse one’s interlocutor – which may be in some cases
morally justified for humans, or Twin-Earth</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">er</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-morally-justified
for Twin Earthers -, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
I said </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
would find such debate </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">very</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">silly,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given
that it’s known that upon ideal reflection, one’s
interlocutor will </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
agree </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">with
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
judgment in their language that is orthographically identical to the
judgment one makes in one’s language. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Of
course, if the human moral sense and the Twin Earthers’
Twin-Earther-moral sense are </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">extremely</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
similar, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
the vast majority of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cases
of divergence in orthographically identical judgments result from
errors committed by one or more of the humans or the Twin Earthers
involved, rather than from species-wide psychological differences,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">then
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">unless
there are good reasons to think that a particular divergence results
from species-wide psychological differences, it may well make sense
to debate, at least at first. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
that’s not the issue. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
while d</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ifferent
people </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">will
asse</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ss
the matter by their own intuitions, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
course, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
my intuitive assessment, the most </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">plausible</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
answer to the Twin Earth scenario </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">by
far </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is:
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="answer1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Answ</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>er
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>A</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1:</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>A1.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>i.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Twin Earthers are talking about Twin-Earther-right and
Twin-Earther-wrong, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.,
rather than about right and wrong.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>A1.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>i</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>i</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Twin Earthers have no moral obligations, though they have
Twin-Earther-moral-obligations.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Another
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">answer
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
the Twin Earth scenario </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">might
be: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="answer2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Answer A2: </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>A2.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>i.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Twin Earther</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
have moral obligations. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>A2.ii</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Twin
Earthers have a sense of right and wrong generally reliable as a
means of assessing what’s right or wrong for a Twin Earther –
which is psychologically different from a human </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">being
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">–
to do</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">whereas
humans have a sense of right and wrong generally reliable as a means
of assessing what’s right or wrong for a human </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">being
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
do.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>A2.iii</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
While there is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">apparent
disagreement </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on
the morality of behavior in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">superficially
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">similar
scenarios that do not factor in the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">species-based
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">differences
in the psychologies </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
the individuals involved in those scenarios</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there is no disagreement upon reflection on what the moral
obligations of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">individuals
of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">each
species are.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
fact, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">upon
reflection, a human should </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">generally
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">rely
on the normal sense of right and wrong of Twin Earthers in order to
assess the moral obligations of Twin Earthers, and vice versa, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">unless
they have other means, like sufficiently powerful computers that can
do the job as well. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Answer
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#answer1">A1</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
holds that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#1">1.</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is true, but it’s different from the way in which Horgan and
Timmons seem to analyze that possibility, in the sense that (by
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A1.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ii.)
humans would upon reflection converge – if they make no
mistakes – to the assessment that Twin Earthers do not have any
moral obligations</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
though they have a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">usually
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">considerably
close analogue. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">nswer
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#answer2">A2</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
that the meaning </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
the terms </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
the same, but denies that there is disagreement in the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">mature</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
folk moralities, so this is implicitly denying the scenario that
Horgan and Timmons propose, by saying that the folk moralities would
not be different because </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">they
would factor in the </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">species-based
d</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ifferences
in </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
psychological makeup of the agents</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
that will yield different verdicts about what an agent morally ought
to do. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
think </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#answer2">A2</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is vulnerable </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
a number of potential difficulties, like: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might suggest that there are</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
situations in which the death of some humans is a worse result than
the death of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
same number of</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Twin Earthers </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">because
of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
species-specific traits of human psychology –</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
all other things equal. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
so, then </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
a human is in a position to save only one group </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
humans or one group of Twin Earthers</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
perhaps </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">she
has a moral obligation to save the humans, bringing about the better
result – i.e., </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
group of</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
humans survive. But </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the Twin Earthers have a moral obligation to bring about the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">worse
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">result,
namely that the Twin Earthers survive? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Or
should they save the humans? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There are potential
answers to this: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">One
option</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
–</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the best </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">by
far</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
I think – </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">i</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#2">2</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is true, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
survival of the group of humans is neither better nor worse than the
survival of the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">group
of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Twin
Earther</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just
because of their species</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Another potential answer –</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
but I think much weaker </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">assuming
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#2"><I>2</I></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">–
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
be to separate human-good and Twin-Earth-good (even if not right and
wrong), and say that Twin Earthers would have a moral obligation in
that case to bring about the worse result, but not the
Twin-Earth-worse result. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>b.</B> What if
it’s not Twin Earthers but far more different aliens, like
species#3? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#morality">earlier
example of species#3</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s
not stipulated that they have a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">species#3-moral</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">obligation
to invade the Earth and eat humans. But perhaps, the condition of a
species#3-moral</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">obligation
to do so might be added, whereas it’s not </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
all </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">plausible
that a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">obligation
to attack the Earth and eat humans, might be added. S</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">o,
it’s intuitively clear that in the case of species#3, they’re
talking about different things, and species#3-morality is not the
same as morality. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It might be argued
that that suggests that the similarities between humans and Twin
Earthers in the Twin Earth scenario give a mistaken impression –
to some humans, at least – that the meaning of the
orthographically identical terms is the same, even if it’s not.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
potential reply </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
defense of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#answer2">A2</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">here
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
be</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that Twin Earthers may be sufficiently similar to humans to have
moral obligations, etc., even though they have somewhat different
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">obligations
sometimes even in superficially </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">identical</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
situations – i.e., situations that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">appear
identical</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
without factoring in some </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">distinct
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">features
of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">human
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Twin
Earth</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">er</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
psychology -, but </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on
the other hand, species#3 aliens are too different from humans, and
do not have moral obligations, but species#3-moral obligations, etc. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
alternative reply in defense of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#answer2">A2</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">might
be that it applies to species#3 as well, and that perhaps they do
have moral obligations like invade the Earth and eat us – even
if they’re not at any risk -, or things like that; but that
seems even more implausible. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>c.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
a different note, it might be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">stipulated</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that correct Twin Earth morality assessments do not take into
consideration the psychological differences between humans and Twin
Earther. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
potential reply </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">here
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">unless
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Twin
Earther mature folk morality converges to taking into account </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
psychological differences between humans and Twin Earthers, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">then
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s
not morality, but Twin-Earth-morality, and we </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
be in the case of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#answer1">answer
A1</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#circular"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#circular"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">8</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#circular"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Intuitively,
as I said, I find </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#answer1">A1</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">lot
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">more
plausible. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Still, in any case,
neither answer seems to provide anything that could support a
metaethical theistic argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="onto1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">13.
Ontologica</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">l
foundation</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
or grounding</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.</SPAN></FONT></B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">A</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">ccording
to Craig, moral values </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">are</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
grounded in God’s character, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">and
moral duties are also ontologically grounded in God because God’s
commands constitute our duties. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Without
God –</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Craig
maintains</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"> – </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">there
would be no such foundation or grounding. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In this section, I
will assess the matter, and raise some objections. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="foundations1"></A>
<B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">1</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">3</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">1.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">Craig’s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">foundational </FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">co</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">nditions</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">.
</FONT></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">In
different documents, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Craig
makes </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">a
number of statements that we may use to </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">approach</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
his concept of ontological foundation, and </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">also
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">infer
some </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">of
the conditions he </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">claims
or implies </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">are
required for an ontological foundation </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">of
moral values and duties. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
On that note, we have the following pieces of information:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>a. </B>Craig rejects Kagan’s ‘ideal observer’
proposal<A HREF="#r17">[r17]</A> on different grounds, one of which
is that that “non-realities” cannot be the ontological
foundations of actual things. So, in particular, this rules out ideal
observers and the like as foundations of objective moral values and
duties.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>b. </B>In a different post explaining part of his metaethical
argument, Craig claims that some qualities are good <I>because</I>
they’re found in God’s nature. [<A HREF="#r18">r18</A>]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>c.</B> Craig rejects abstracts objects as a foundation of
morality, or generally it seems as foundations of any concrete
things, given his take on abstracta.<A HREF="#r19">[r1</A><A HREF="#r19">9</A><A HREF="#r19">]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>d.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
I</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
one of his books</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r20"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r20]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
says that the kind of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">grounding
(i.e., foundation)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
he</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'s
talking about is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">what
Mark Murphy calls “informative identification”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r21">[r21]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">proposes
an </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">informative
identification </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>of
moral values with God’s character – or </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>at
least </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>some
aspects of it -, and moral duties with God’s commands. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>s
illustration</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>s
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>of
what kind of foundation</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>al</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>account
an </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>informative
identification is, Murphy gives the examples of the identification of
water with H2O, and of heat with molecular motion. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>e.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
In his debate with Sam Harris</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#r5"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r5]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
Craig makes it clear that when he's asking about the foundation about
objective moral values and duties, one of the things he's asking is
what </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">makes
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">those
actions good and evil, right or wrong. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>f</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Further</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">more</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
Craig goes on to provide an example: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">he
says that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral
values are </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">determined
by </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
paradigm of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s
character in a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">manner</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
akin to the way in which in the past, a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
meter was defined in terms of a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">paradigmatic
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">meter
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">bar.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#r19"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#r19"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">9</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#r19"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#r20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r20]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#meter1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#meter1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">9</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#meter1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e
have enough information to list </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
of the conditions Craig requires as an ontological foundation of
objective moral values and duties. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="OFOMV"></A>
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given
the previous points, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
seems that according </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig,
if X is an ontological foundation of objective moral values </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(OF</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">OMV)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
following conditions</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">–
which may overlap</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– obtain: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="OF"></A>
<B>OF</B><B>O</B><B>MV</B><B>1</B>: X is not an abstract object.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>OF</B><B>O</B><B>MV</B><B>2</B>: X is actual and not some sort of
ideal observer.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>OF</B><B>OMV</B><B>3</B>: To be morally good is non-trivially but
informatively identified with X, or at least with some states or
aspects of X, in a way akin to the way in which water is identified
with H2O, or heat is identified with molecular motion in 'informative
identification' accounts of water and heat, respectively.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>OF</B><B>OMV</B><B>4</B><B>: </B>Things (people, behavior, etc.)
are morally good to the extent to which they are so <I>because </I>they
stand in certain relation to X, or at least to some aspect or state
of X, etc. In other words, that is what <I>makes them </I>morally
good.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>OF</B><B>OMV</B><B>5</B><B>:</B><B> </B><B>[somewhat tentative</B><B>;
Craig is not clear on this</B><B>] </B>X (or at least some aspect, or
state of X, etc.) provides a paradigm, a measure based on which moral
goodness is determined, in such a way that nothing would be morally
good if X did not exist. Also, this paradigm is in some way akin to
the paradigmatic meter bar in the past.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
There <I>might</I> be more requirements in Craig’s view, but <I>at
least </I>those appear to be at least <I>some</I> of the requirements
for an ontological foundation of objective moral values, although in
the case of condition 5 – i.e., OFOMV5 -, and while it seems
probable based on Craig's statements and argumentation that that is
one of the conditions he demands, the evidence is less strong than it
is in the case of the other conditions. But Craig does not specify
which conditions he maintains an ontological foundation meets or must
meet, we're only able to infer his conditions from claims and
arguments he makes in different works, debates, etc., and the
evidence appears to be insufficient to fully settle the matter. So,
given that condition 5 seems to probably be one of his conditions, I
will keep it, but also consider the alternative interpretation that
he does not require 5 as a condition.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="questions"></A>
That aside, Craig makes corresponding demands in the case of an
ontological foundation of objective moral duties, so there seem to be
conditions OFOMD1-5 as well, corresponding to OFOMV1-5, and which I
will not list for the sake of brevity.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, some key questions are:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="11'"></A>
<B>1. </B>Should we expect that objective moral values have an
ontological foundation, in the sense of informative
identification?<A HREF="#notational">[</A><A HREF="#notational">3</A><A HREF="#notational">0</A><A HREF="#notational">]</A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>1':</B> Should we expect that objective moral duties have an
ontological foundation, in the sense of informative identification?
<A HREF="#30">[30]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="22'"></A>
<B>2.</B> Assuming that the answer to 1. is affirmative, should we
expect that the ontological foundation of moral values meets
conditions OFOMV1-5? (or 1-4, in case Craig does not require
condition 5)</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>2'.</B> Assuming that the answer to 1'. is affirmative, should we
expect that the ontological foundation of moral duties meets
conditions OFOMD1-5 – which are conditions corresponding to
OFOMV1-5? (or 1-4, in case Craig does not require condition 5)</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="33'"></A>
<B>3.</B><B>a. </B>Assuming that the answer to 1. is affirmative, is
there generally a burden on non-theists to present a theory of an
ontological foundation of moral values, in the sense of informative
identification?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>3</B><B>a</B><B>'. </B>Assuming that the answer to 1'. is
affirmative, is there generally a burden on non-theists to present a
theory of an ontological foundation of moral duties, in the sense of
informative identification?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
I will address these questions below, beginning in section <A HREF="#ontologicalfoundation">13.</A><A HREF="#ontologicalfoundation">3</A>,
but first, I will raise some objections to Craig's own foundational
account, in the following subsection.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
On a terminological note, from now on, when I speak of an ontological
foundation, I'm talking about a foundation in the sense of
informative identification<A HREF="#30">[30]</A>, unless otherwise
specified, since that is the sense of foundation that Craig is
talking about.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="foundations3"></A><A NAME="craignoexplain"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>1</B><B>3.2</B><B>.</B> <B>Craig’s
</B><B>theistic </B><B>foundational </B><B>account</B><B>, and
Craig's first premise</B><B>. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto">
In this subsection, I will first raise <A HREF="#duplicates">an
objection to Craig's first premise</A>, and I will argue that we have
good grounds not just to reject it as unsupported, but to conclude
it's actually false.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
After that, <A HREF="#informativeidentification">I will raise an
</A><A HREF="#informativeidentification">o</A><A HREF="#informativeidentification">bjection
</A><A HREF="#informativeidentification">Craig's </A><A HREF="#informativeidentification">foundational</A><A HREF="#informativeidentification">
account</A><A HREF="#informativeidentification"> </A>– and
relevantly similar metaethical theories -, based on a more general
hypothesis about ontological accounts in terms of informative
identification, which I find plausible.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Later, I will raise <A HREF="#circularity">another objection to
Craig's foundational account</A>, based on a circularity issue.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But I go on, I'd like to point out that the rest of the arguments in
this essay are independent of any of the arguments in <A HREF="#craignoexplain"><U>this
subsection</U></A><U>,</U> and are also sufficient to properly reject
Craig's metaethical argument – one of my goals is to provide
mutually independent grounds to reject Craig's metaethical argument,
each of them sufficient.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="duplicates"></A><A NAME="duplicateminds"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>13.2.1.
Duplica</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>te
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>minds.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let's consider the following scenarios:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Dick"></A>
<B>Scenario S3: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Dick#3 is a human serial killer who enjoys killing his victims in a
particularly slow and painful manner. He does all of that for fun,
and he has dozens of victims. God exists. <A HREF="#poe">[3</A><A HREF="#poe">1</A><A HREF="#poe">]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Scenario S4: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Dick#4 is an agent whose mind is like Dick#3's mind is in S3 in the
sense that Dick#4 perceives, remembers, desires, feels, generally
subjectively experiences, believes, intends and chooses in S4, just
the same as Dick#3 perceives, remembers, desires, feels, generally
subjectively experiences, believes, intends, and chooses in scenario
S3.<A HREF="#overlap">[32]</A> That includes, in particular, making
the same free choices, and for the same reasons. For example, if
Dick#3 in S3 freely chooses to torture a little girl for fun, cut her
limbs off and watch her bleed to death, Dick#4 makes the same choice
in scenario S4. And they both feel the same amount of pleasure in
doing so.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, Dick#4 <I>has no victims</I>. He never inflicted any pain or
any suffering on anyone. He <I>believes </I>he has dozens of victims,
he has <I>experienced </I>the same as Dick#3 has experienced, but he
has no victims. Instead, in scenario S4 there is a very powerful
creature – say Joker#4 -, who trapped Dick#4 – who was
still planning to attack his first intended victim – in a sort
of holodeck or similar environment, in which Dick#4 experiences what
looks to him like interacting with people, torturing them, etc., but
those aren't real people: they're just constructs of Joker#4's mind
and/or a device made by Joker#4, which do not experience any
suffering, pain, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In S4, God exists.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="s5"></A>
<B>Scenario S5. </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Dick#5 is an agent whose mind is like Dick#3's mind is in S3 in the
sense described above, who has victims who suffer the same as
Dick#3's victims in S3 – their minds are also exact duplicates
of those of Dick#3's victims -, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
God does not exist.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Scenario S6. </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Dick#6 is an agent whose mind is like Dick#3's mind is in S3, in the
sense described above. However, Dick#6 <I>has no victims</I>. He
never inflicted pain or any suffering on anyone. He <I>believes </I>he
has dozens of victims, he has <I>experienced </I>the same as Dick#3
has experienced, but he has no victims. Instead, in scenario S6 there
is a very powerful entity – say Joker#6 -, who trapped Dick#6 –
who was still planning to attack his first intended victim – in
a sort of holodeck or similar environment, in which Dick#6
experiences what looks to him like interacting with people, torturing
them, etc., but those aren't real people: they're just constructs of
Joker#6's mind and/or a device made by Joker#6, which do not
experience any suffering, pain, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In S6, God does not exist.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If we make now intuitive assessments of the respective Dicks and
their behavior, it's clear that:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="dicks"></A>
<B>a.</B> In S3, Dick#3 is a morally bad person.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>b.</B> In S4, Dick#4 is a morally bad person, and exactly as
morally bad as Dick#3 is in S3.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>c.</B> In S5, Dick#5 is a morally bad person, and exactly as
morally bad as Dick#3 is in S3.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>d.</B> In S6, Dick#6 is a morally bad person, and exactly as
morally bad as Dick#3 is in S3.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>e.</B> In S3, Dick#3 is behaving immorally when he's torturing
and/or killing his victims for fun.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>f.</B> In S4, Dick#4 is behaving immorally when he experiences as
if he's torturing and/or killing victims for fun. Furthermore, he's
is behaving exactly as immorally as Dick#3 is behaving in S3, in the
corresponding cases.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>g</B><B>.</B> In S5, Dick#5 is behaving immorally when he's
torturing and/or killing his victims for fun. Furthermore, he's
behaving exactly as immorally as Dick#3 is behaving in S3, in the
corresponding cases.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>h.</B> In S6, Dick#6 is behaving immorally when he experiences as
if he's torturing and/or killing victims for fun. Furthermore, he’s
behaving exactly as immorally as Dick#3 is behaving in the
corresponding cases.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="duplicate2"></A>
More generally, we are able to establish by reflection on our
intuitive grasp of the relevant moral concepts<A HREF="#intui"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></A><A HREF="#intui"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3</FONT></A><A HREF="#intui"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3</FONT></A><A HREF="#intui"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and by </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">means of </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">assessing
scenarios like S3-S6</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> and
others</FONT>, that whenever two agents in different scenarios are
such that their minds are alike <A HREF="#duplicates"><U>in the sense
described above</U></A>, then one of them is morally good or bad if
and only if the other one is – and to the same extent -; one of
them behaves immorally if and only if the other one does and to the
same extent, etc., and generally they have the same moral properties
regardless of any other factors, and in particular regardless of
whether certain other agents – be it God or even victims in the
case of immoral behavior – exist in the scenarios in question.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Based on that, it seems clear that it's <I>extremely counterintuitive</I>
the claim that if God did not exist, then objective moral values and
duties would not exist. In other words, the first premise of Craig’s
metaethical argument flies on the fact of our intuitions, and indeed
our grasp of moral concepts.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, in a reply to an objection raised by Swinburne, Craig claims
that on his account, God exists necessarily, so scenarios in which
God does not exist are impossible, and that would allegedly block
Swinburne’s objection. <A HREF="#r21b">[</A><A HREF="#r22">r</A><A HREF="#r22">2</A><A HREF="#r22">2</A><A HREF="#r21a">]</A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Without taking a stance on whether Craig’s reply works against
Swinburne’s objection, we may ask here: Would that reply, or a
similar one, work against the objection to the first premise that I'm
raising here, which is somewhat similar but <I>not </I>in terms of
possible worlds?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It seems clear that it would not, since what we’re assessing is
whether if God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would
exist, and in order to assess that matter, we need to assess
scenarios in which God does not exist, regardless of whether such
scenarios are possible.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In fact, <I>Craig himself </I>gives arguments in support of the first
premise of his metaethical argument that are based on hypothetical
scenarios in which God does not exist, and makes some assessments in
those scenarios, claiming that in those cases, objective moral values
and duties would not exist. However, in addition to not giving any
good reasons in support of such claims – which is what I argue
in much of this essay -, Craig fails to include in his assessment of
the hypothetical scenarios in which God does not exist the fact that
his conclusion that in those cases, objective moral values and duties
would not exist, <I>flies on the face of </I><I>our </I><I>intuitions</I>.
For instance, in support of the second premise, Craig uses the
example of the Holocaust, appealing to moral intuitions and/or our
grasp of moral concepts to support the claim that the Holocaust was
immoral and would have been immoral even if all humans believed
otherwise. There is no problem with that, but what Craig does not
point out is the fact that the same intuitions and/or grasp of the
concepts also support the conclusion that the Holocaust was immoral,
and would have been immoral <I>even if humans were the only persons
that actually exist. </I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Scenarios like S3-S6, and the assessments I made above, also make use
of some scenarios in which God does not exist, and those assessments
strongly support the conclusion that it’s not the case that if
God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
At this point, someone might object to that assessment and claim that
even though our moral intuitions constitute some evidence in favor of
the view that in some scenarios in which God does not exist,
objective moral values and duties do exist, upon reflection and when
also factoring in the argumentation provided by Craig as evidence,
the overall evidence supports the claim that in those scenarios,
objective moral values and duties do not exist, and generally the
contention that if God did not exist, objective moral values and
duties would not exist.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, that’s not even <I>remotely</I> plausible. Purely for
example, our assessment that, say, a person who tortures children for
pleasure every single day is a morally evil person is <I>extremely</I>
intuitively plausible. On the other hand, some of the implicit or
explicit hypotheses on which Craig bases his arguments in support of
the first premise of the metaethical argument are remarkably weak.
Again, purely for example, even <I>before </I>considering any of the
arguments that I will give below, Craig's assumption that objective
moral values and duties have or at least plausibly have an
ontological foundation that meets <A HREF="#OFOMV">conditio</A><A HREF="#OFOMV">ns
1-5</A> – or even 1-4, in case Craig does not assume condition
5 – is not nearly as plausible as our assessment about the
moral evilness of the sadistic torturer in question.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Hence, the considerations made above do constitute very strong
evidence against the first premise of Craig's metaethical argument,
that is, very strong evidence that the premise in question is <I>false</I>.
<A HREF="#intui"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></A><A HREF="#intui"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3</FONT></A><A HREF="#intui"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3</FONT></A><A HREF="#intui"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let us now turn to the other issue: Do scenarios like <A HREF="#duplicates"><U>S3-S6</U></A>
and/or considerations similar to those <A HREF="#duplicate2">made
</A><A HREF="#duplicate2">above</A>, also work against Craig’s
theistic foundational account, and not merely his first premise?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It seems to me that they plausibly do, for the reasons I will explain
below.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="informativeidentification"></A>
<B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">13.2.2.
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Informative
identifi</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">cation
a</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">ccounts
and conceptual problems</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.</SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Let's
stipulate that:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>1. </B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">O(X,</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Y) is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
hypothesis that X is identified with Y</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
for some X and Y</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">. </SPAN>In
other words, O(X, Y) is a foundational account of X in terms of Y, in
the sense of informative identification.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>2.</B> S(X, Y, r) is a hypothetical scenario, defined by some
conditions C(S(X, Y, r)), and which are not contradictory. In other
words, the conjunction of the conditions that define the scenario
does not entail a contradiction. [r is an index number]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>3.</B> E(X, r) is a known, actually true hypothesis asserting that
some concrete particular E in the actual world is (or was) X, or has
(or had) X if X is a property. This condition is not
scenario-dependent. It's about something in the actual world, not
actual from the perspective of some hypothetical scenario.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
For example, given that we know that Pol Pot was a morally evil
person, we may pick E(moral evilness, 1) to be 'Pol Pot was morally
evil', or equivalently 'Pol Pot had the property moral evilness'.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
Another example: Given that I know that the liquid that is in the
bottle on my desk is water, I may pick E(water, 8) to be 'The liquid
in the bottle on my desk is water'<A HREF="#purewater">[3</A><A HREF="#purewater">4</A><A HREF="#purewater">]</A>.
And since we know that the liquid that fills the Pacific Ocean is
water, we may pick E(water, 74) to be 'The liquid that fills the
Pacific Ocean is water.' <A HREF="#purewater">[3</A><A HREF="#purewater">4</A><A HREF="#purewater">]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="NOXY"></A>
We say that condition <B>N(O(X, Y))</B> obtains if the following
conditions obtain for some r:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>a</B><B>(X, Y, r). </B>From C(S(X, Y, r))&E(X, r), using the
concept of X, it follows that there is/was some concrete particular Z
in S(X, Y, r) such that Z is/was/has/had X in S(X, Y, r) but it's
not the case that Z is (or was/has/had) Y in S(X, Y, r).
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>b</B><B>(X, Y, r). </B>From C(S(X, Y, r))&E(X, r), using the
concept of X, no contradiction follows.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>c</B><B>(X, Y, r)</B><B>.</B> From C(S(X, Y, r))&E(X, r),
<I>without</I> using the concept of X, it does not follow that there
is/was some concrete particular Z in S(X, Y, r) such that Z
is/was/has/had X in S(X, Y, r) but it's not the case that Z
is/was/has/had Y in S(X, Y, r).
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>d</B><B>(X, Y, r)</B><B>.</B> From C(S(X, Y, r))&E(X, r), even
using the concept of X, it does <I>not</I> follow that there is/was
some concrete particular Z in the <I>actual</I> world such that Z
is/was/has/had X in the <I>actual</I> world, but it's not the case
that Z is/was/has/had Y in the <I>actual</I> world.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Under
those definitions, the general hypothesis in question is as follows:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="C1"></A>
<B>C1: </B>If <A HREF="#NOXY"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">N</SPAN></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(</SPAN></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">O(X,
Y)</SPAN></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)</SPAN></A>
obtains, then O(X, Y) is not a true foundational account of X in
terms of Y, in the sense of informative identification.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
think C1 is plausible because if </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">N</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">O(X,
Y)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
obtain</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">identifying
X with Y</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
would seem to be in conflict with our </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">understanding</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of the concept of X</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">other
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cases
of ontological accounts in the sense of informative identification,
like the hypothesis that water is H2O, or</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the hypothesis</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that heat is molecular motion, conceptual analysis is </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">insufficient
to establish the identities </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
question </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">–
we also need empirical findings -, but</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
on the other hand, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
hypotheses</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in question </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">do
not seem to conflict</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">with
our grasp of the</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
relevant concept</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#goodnessnogod"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Below</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
I will show that if </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#C1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">C1</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is true, Craig's foundational account is false. But before that,
let's assess an objection</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Objection
13.2.2.1</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>
</FONT></FONT></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>i.</I></FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#C1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">C1</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is implausible because it includes scenarios </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S(X,
Y, r) </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
are </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">metaphysically
impossible</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<I><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>ii.</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>
</FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
hypothesis C</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
just like C</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
but restricted to</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
metaphysically possible scenarios</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">true.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></I></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<I><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>iii.</FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
A</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ny
scenario in which God</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
not exist is metaphysically impossible</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
if God exists</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Reply: </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Point
iii. is usually accepted in my experience, but I do not see why it
should be, under a </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#traditional"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">GCB</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
conception of God</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
At least, that would have to be argued for, and </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
mere </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">claim
that necessary existence is a great-making property </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
seem </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">persuasive</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
my view</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">defining
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
term 'God' in modal terms (instead of </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">conceivability
terms, in order to avoid the issue of whether </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">conceivability
is coextensive with metaphysical possibility</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
a way such that point </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">iii.
is guaranteed</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">may
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">well
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">give
rise to coherence difficulties</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– a</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">part
from any coherence issues </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">with</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
concept of the </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#traditional"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">GCB</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
itself</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
some of which I will briefly comment on </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#circularity"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">later</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Still,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let's
grant iii. for the sake of the argument</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and let's say that the </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#traditional"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">GCB</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is such that if God actually exists, God exists necessarily. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
p</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">oint
i. </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">still</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">seems
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">very
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">implausible,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">since
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">he
conflict </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
the allegedly informative identification between X and Y and our
grasp of the relevant </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">concepts
seem</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to remain</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
regardless of whether S(X, Y</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
r</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)
is possible</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">M</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">oreover,
there seems to be no good reason why the [</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">assumed</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]
necessity of God </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
God exists </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">should
immunize theistic hypotheses of informative identification from
challenges based on our grasp of the relevant concepts, while </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">any</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
other account of informative identification that does not posit an
allegedly necessary being would be subject to such challenges.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On that note, and
for that matter, someone might say that to be kind is to resemble
God. Should we accept that there is no way of challenging such an
account on the basis on our grasp of the concept of kindness and some
hypothetical scenarios just because God [we assume] is necessary if
he exists? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
seems </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">very</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
implausible.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Generally,
it </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">seems
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">very
plausible </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
me </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
we may properly challenge an</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">y</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
account </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
informative identification </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
basis of our grasp of the relevant concepts</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#C1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">C1</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">an
attempt </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
capture </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">somewhat
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">more
precisely </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least one of the ways </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
which we may raise some of those challenges</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
based on our grasp of the relevant concepts. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
C1 seems plausible as far as I can tell, but even </SPAN></FONT></FONT><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">C1
were to be rejected for some reason, I would still</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">intuitively
reckon that hypotheses of informative identification may properly be
challenged </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on
the basis </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
the relevant concepts</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
even if not </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the basis of C1</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Still,
given that C1 appears plausible and I see no good reason to reject
it, I will make an argument against Craig's foundational account of
moral goodness based on </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#C1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">C1</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="goodnessnogod"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">13.2.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">2</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">1.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">
Goodnes</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">s without God. </FONT></B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, let's argue
against Craig's ontological account based on <A HREF="#C1">C1</A>. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Craig holds that moral values are grounded in God's nature, and God
is the paradigm of goodness. <A HREF="#r4">[r</A><A HREF="#r4">4]</A>
He also identifies moral obligations with God's commands.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000">So,
on his account, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">it seems that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">to
be morally good is to resemble God</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> in
some way</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">, and to </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">be
morally obligatory is to be commanded by God. In other words, moral
goodness </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">would be identified </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">with</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
some unspecified</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> resemblance to God, and
moral duties with God's commands. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><BR></FONT>Let's
assume at least for now that the concept of resemblance to God is not
contradictory – else, Craig's ontological account fails just
because of that. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's also assume
that in a given scenario, nothing resembles God in the relevant sense
unless God exists, since that seems to be Craig's position –
else, it seems that resemblance to God would not require the
existence of God, and the account would be compatible with non-theism
plus the truth of ordinary moral assessments, like the assessment
that it's immoral for a person to kill people for fun. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let X1 be moral
goodness, and let Y1 be resemblance to God (in some sense of
resemblance; it works for any sense). Let E(X1, 1) be "Giorgio
Perlasca behaved in a morally good way when he made some choices to
save people from the Nazis"<A HREF="#r23">[r</A><A HREF="#r23">23</A><A HREF="#r21b">]</A>
In case someone objects to this particular example for whatever
reason, any known actual example of morally good behavior by a human
being will do. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's consider O(X1,
Y1), and define scenario S(X1, Y1 1) by conditions C(S(X1, Y1, 1)),
which are as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>C(S(X1, Y1, 1))-1:
God does not exist. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>C(S(X1, Y1, 1))-2:
There was entity Giorgio#1 in S(X1, Y1, 1) such that the mind of
Giorgio#1 was like the mind of Giorgio Perlasca in the actual world
in the sense that Giorgio#1 believed, remembered, perceived, desired,
felt, generally subjectively experienced, intended, chose, etc., in
S(X1, Y1, 1), the same as Giorgio Perlasca believed, remembered,
perceived, desired, felt, generally subjectively experienced,
intended, chose, etc., in the real world. That includes in particular
making the same free choices in the corresponding cases, and for the
same reasons. <A HREF="#overlap">[32]</A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now, from C(S(X1,
Y1, 1)) (i.e., the conjunction of the conditions), plus E(X1, 1), and
our concept of moral goodness, no contradiction seems to follow, but
it follows that Giorgio#1 behaved in a morally good way in S(X1, Y1,
1) when he made some choices to save people from the Nazis. In
particular, it follows that Giorgio#1 had at least <I>some</I><I>
</I>moral goodness in S(X1, Y1, 1), but had no resemblance to God in
S(X1, Y1, 1), since God does not exist in S(X1, Y1, 1). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On the other hand,
we are not able to reach that conclusion only from C(S(X1, Y1, 1))
plus E(X1, 1), but <I>without</I> using the concept of moral
goodness. Nor are we able to conclude, from C(S(X1, Y1, 1)) plus
E(X1, 1), even using the concept of moral goodness, that there is
some agent in the actual world that had some moral goodness but has
no resemblance to God. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Granted, someone
might say that there might be some hidden entailments somewhere, but
there is no good reason to assume so. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, it seems that
<A HREF="#NOXY">N(O(X1, Y1))</A> obtains, and so if <A HREF="#C1">C1</A>
obtains – which seems plausible -, then Craig's foundational
account is false. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noh2o"></A>
<B><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">13.2.</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">2</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">2.</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Water
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">without
H2O? </SPAN></FONT></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In this subsection, I will </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">address
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">potential
objection to the objection to Craig's metaethical account that I
raise </SPAN><A HREF="#duplicateminds"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">above</SPAN></U></A><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">based on</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
a</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">paralle</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">l</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">with the account of water
and H2O. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So, let X2 be water, and Y2 be H2O</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and let's try to construct some S(X2, Y2, 2) based on which we would
conclude that </SPAN><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">N(O(X</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Y</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
obtains, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
so if </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#C1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">C1</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
obtains,</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
then the account of water in terms of H2O is false. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let
E(X2, 2) be "</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
l</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">iquid
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
fills the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Atlantic
Ocean is water.", which is true</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
oil spills notwithstanding</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#purewater">[34]</A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
The choice of the Atlantic Ocean, of course, is of no importance, as
long as the claim meets the requirement </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#informativeidentification"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
point 3. above.</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
So, how might someone go about arguing that <A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">N(O(X</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Y</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
obtains? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Mirroring
t</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#againstdct">he
construction I made above</A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
someone might try the</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to define </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">C(S(X</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
Y</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">))</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
as the conjunction of the</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
following conditions: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>C(S(X2, Y2, 2))-1:
Oxygen does not exist. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>C(S(X2, Y2, 2))-2:
There is a liquid L2 such that L2 has in S(X2, Y2, 2) the same
physical properties as the liquid that fills the Atlantic Ocean –
or, if needed, the same physical properties as a specific sample from
that the liquid in the Atlantic Ocean that is water. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>i</B><B>.</B> If
being composed of H2O – i.e., two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen
atom – is a physical property, and the definition of C(S(X2,
Y2, 2))-2 is to be understood as using the actual world as a means to
choose the properties of L2 in S(X2, Y2, 2), then from the conditions
C(X2, Y2, 2) it follows that oxygen does exist in S(X2, Y2, 2) and
also that it's not the case that oxygen exists in S(X2, Y2, 2). So,
S(X2, Y2, 2) is contradictory, and so it may not be used to support
<A HREF="#NOXY"><U>N(O(X</U></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><U>2</U></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><U>,
</U></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><U>Y</U></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><U>2)</U></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><U>)</U></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>ii</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
being composed of H2O</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">i.e.,
two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
a physical property, and the definition of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">C(S(X</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
Y</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">))-</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2
is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
be understood as</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>i</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
above, then it's unclear how to construe it</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">There
are different potential variants. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
moreover, in any case, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
S(X2, Y2, 2) is not contradictory, then it remains the case that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
C(S(X2, Y2, 2)), it follows that L2 is not composed of H2O </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
S(X2, Y2, 2) </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">–
since oxygen does not exist in the scenario -, and since </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
physical properties of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">L2
in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S(X2,
Y2, 2)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
the same as the physical properties of the relevant liquid in the
actual world, the liquid in question is not composed of H2O. From
that and E(X2, 2), it follows that the liquid </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
fills the Atlantic Ocean, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
the actual world, is water but </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
H2O. But then, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">N(O(X</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Y</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2)</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
not supported by S(X2, Y2, 2)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
because condition </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">d</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.(X2,
Y2, 2)</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
not obtain. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>iii.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
If </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">being
composed of H2O is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
physical property, then anyone raising this objection would need to
specify what they mean</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
by 'physical property', or otherwise define the properties they want
to assign to L2, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">so
that the matter may be assessed. Personally, I've not found a variant
that works; i.e., I've not found any way of showing that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">N(O(X</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Y</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#NOXY"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">obtains</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
by defining the relevant properties in any way. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
someone might try to define different scenarios, or perhaps </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">try
to show that C1 entails that some other generally accepted
informative identification – i.e., other than 'water is H2O' -
would be false, but that would have to be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">defended.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
also, i</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t's
not an easy matter, but so far, I've not been able to figure out any
way of showing that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#C1">C1</A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
would prove too much if true, and it remains plausible for the
reasons I gave </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#C1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">above</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that C1 is in fact true. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="circularity"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">13.2.3.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
Circularity.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
As I mentioned earlier, Craig holds that moral values are grounded in
God's nature, and God is the paradigm of goodness. <A HREF="#r4">[r</A><A HREF="#r4">4]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So,
on his account, </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">it
seems that </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">to
be morally good is to resemble God</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
in some way</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Also,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Craig
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">defines
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">the
term 'God' as "the greatest conceivable being".
</SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#r5">[r5]</A><A HREF="#r5b">[r5b]</A><A HREF="#r24"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">[</SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#r24"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><U>r2</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#r24"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><U>4</U></FONT></A><A HREF="#r24"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">]</SPAN></FONT></A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">That
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">definition
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">seems
to assume a shared</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
c</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">oncept
of greatness</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
that may be used to define the term 'God'. </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Th</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">at
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">seems
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">doubtful</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
to me</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Purely
for </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">example</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
would be inclined to say that Alice is a greater person than Bob if
and only if Alice is morally better than Bob. In other words, at
least when it comes to greatness </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
a person, </SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
seems to be about moral goodness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
as I would use the words</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
If Bob and Alice are equally morally good, I wouldn't say that Alice
is a greater person </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">than
Bob just because </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">she
is, say, more powerful or knowledgeable than Bob</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
all other things equal</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
might in those cases say that Alice </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
greater power or knowledge, but not that she's a greater person</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>if</B></SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
there is a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">shared
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">concept
of greatness and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>if</B></SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
greatness depends, when it comes to personal beings, only on moral
goodness – and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">maximal
greatness is thus </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">equivalent
to moral perfection -, then there might be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
all we know </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">plenty
of possible </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">personal
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">beings
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">who</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
are maximal</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ly
great</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Moreover, in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
case, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">greatness
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
not entail properties like </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">being
particularly powerful</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Yet,
Craig and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">many
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">other</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
theist philosophers </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">appear
to understand greatness very differently</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
talking about several</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
great-making properties, even if sometimes </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
considers it difficult to figure out some of those. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r24"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#r24"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#r24"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">While
it's true that, as Craig points out</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#r24"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#r24"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A HREF="#r24"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the mere fact that people disagree on which properties are
great-making does </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">imply
that there is no fact of the matter, this specific </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">example
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
seem to show more than </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">mere
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">disagreement
about whether a certain property is great-making, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">seem</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">reveal
different concepts</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
since he's </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">clearly</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
only talking about moral goodness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and I would only be talking about </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
as I grasp the concept</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
someone might say that ontological greatness, even when applied to
humans, is not the same as being a greater person. But I do not </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">seem
to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">have
a concept of ontological greatness; I understand</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the idea of</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
being a greater person, or </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
idea of being </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">greater
with respect to some other property </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">other
than personhood </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">–
like knowledge or power -, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but
that's it. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>If
</B></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
is no such shared concept</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of greatness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it seems that Craig's concept of God ought to be rejected</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and then the same goes for his foundational metaethical account. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
someone might say that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">have
failed to grasp the concept, or </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">raise
some other objection</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
I</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
remain </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">skeptical</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
about the concept of a 'greatest conceivable being', b</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ut
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let's
let that pass</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and l</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">et's
assume </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
the sake of the argument </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
there is such shared concept of greatness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and that</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
it's not limited to moral goodness. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
there seems to be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
following problem with his foundational account: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">a.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
I</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
his debate with Sam Harris, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
claims that it follows from the very concept of God as the greatest
conceivable being that God is morally good </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#r5b"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r5b]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">someone
who understands the concept of God realizes that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">asking
why God is good is like asking why bachelors are unmarried. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Thus</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
according to this, the expression 'God is morally good' is
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><I><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">analytical</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></I><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and the analyticity in question is apparently </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">transparent</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">b.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">dditionally</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
claim</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
be [morally] good is a great-making property </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><I><B><A HREF="#r25">[r25]</A></B></I><A HREF="#r5b"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r5b]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and uncontroversially so.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><I><B><A HREF="#r26">[r26]</A></B></I><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">c.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Furthermore,
when addressing a 'perfect island' objection to the ontological
argument </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><I><B><A HREF="#r26">[r26]</A></B></I><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
he gives an account of what the idea of the most perfect island would
be</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– which he rejects, of course -</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and that would be an island that exists </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
every metaphysically – or broadly logically – possible
world and has </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">all
of the properties that are great-making with respect to islands. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It seems that the
idea of God is, according to Craig, that of a being that has all of
the great-making properties to a maximal degree and in every
metaphysically possible world. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Given
that concepti</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
seems that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig's
foundational account of moral goodness, in the sense of informative
identification</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#30"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[30]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
is as follows: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="dct1"></A>
<B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">G1:</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
To be morally good is to resemble</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
some relevant way</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
being </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">who</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
exists in every metaphysically possible world and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">who
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
all of the great-making properties to a maximally possible degree in
every possible world. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#noteaccount"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[35]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">seems
to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">vicious
circularity </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">problem.
For example, let's say that someone proposes an ontological account
in the sense of informative identification as follows: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="w1"></A>
<B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">B</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">To
be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">an
unmarried man</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is to resemble</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
some relevant way</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
unique </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">bachelor</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
who exists at every possible world. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
would not be a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">informative
</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">identification.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
addition</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to other </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">obvious
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">problems
with </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">B1,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">seems
to be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">vicious
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">circularity
problem</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
since B1 is transparently analytically equivalent to: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">B</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">1'</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">To
be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">an
unmarried</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">man
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
to resemble</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
some relevant way</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
unique </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">unmarried
man</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
who exists at every possible world. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
vicious circularity problem that I'm focusing on is independent f</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">rom</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
other problems with the account, like the non-existence of such
necessary bachelor. For example, the following </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">two
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">account</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
also </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
be viciously circular, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
a proposed informative identification. </SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">B2:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">To
be an unmarried man is to be a bachelor. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">B2':</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
To be an unmarried man is to be an unmarried man. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Neither B2 nor B2'
provides any kind of informative identification, at least not to
someone who understands the meaning of the words in the sentences –
though at least they have the advantage of being true, unlike B1 and
B1'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">going
by Craig's claims, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><B><A HREF="#dct1">G1</A></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
seems to be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">transparently
analytically equivalent</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">G</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
To be morally good is to resemble </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
some relevant way a being </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">who</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
exists in every metaphysically possible world and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">who
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
morally good to a maximal degree in every possible world, and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">who
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">also
has all of the other great-making properties to a maximally possible
degree in every possible world. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#noteaccount"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[35]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, in addition to
other problems, Craig's foundational account seems to suffer from a
vicious circularity problem. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
said</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
will from now on leave aside the arguments given </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#craignoexplain"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">this
subsection</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">will
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">continue
to raise objections to Craig's metaethical argument, based on other,
independent grounds. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="ontologicalfoundation"></A>
<B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">13.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">3</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">.
Should w</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">e expect t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">hat
objective moral values and/or duties have an ontological foundation</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">in the sense of informative
identification</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">? </FONT></B><A HREF="#30"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[30]</SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Craig claims that explanations – and, presumably, ontological
foundations – have to stop somewhere<A HREF="#r18"> [r1</A><A HREF="#r18">8</A>],
so it's clear that his own claims entail that some things are
objective and have no ontological foundation in terms of informative
identification – because the explanations stop somewhere. So,
why should we expect an ontological foundation in the sense of
informative identification in the case of, say, moral goodness?
Should we expect an ontological foundation of, say, pain? How about,
say, happiness? Pleasure? Fear? Kindness? Cruelty? Rules of vulture
pecking order? Rules of wolf pecking order?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In any event, Craig does not provide any good reason to suspect that
such foundation is required in the particular case of objective moral
values and/or duties.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Is it that supervenient properties or states need an ontological
foundation, perhaps? Why?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But if that is, and following the examples of water and heat, it
seems that, say, moral goodness would plausibly be identified with
the mental states on which it supervenes, so for example, moral
obligations would supervene on a list of states of mind (including
knowledge, intentions, etc.).
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In any case, Craig has not met the burden of explaining why we should
think that there is such a foundation.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Still, even assuming for the sake of the argument that there is an
ontological foundation of objective moral values and there is an
ontological foundation of objective moral duties, the questions of
whether we should expect that such foundations meet conditions
<A HREF="#OFOMV"><U>O</U></A><A HREF="#OFOMV"><U>FO</U></A><A HREF="#OFOMV"><U>MV1-</U></A><U>5</U><A HREF="#OFOMV"><U>
and OFOMD1-</U></A><U>5</U><U> – </U>or even conditions 1-4,
just in case Craig does not require condition 5 - (i.e., <A HREF="#22'">questions
2 and 2'</A>), remain.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Craig has not given us any good reasons to think so.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">But let's
consider some </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">other
example</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
and assess whether the</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
accounts </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">in
question </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">–
or rather, the foundations they </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">posit</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
– </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">meet
Craig's conditions</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
or whether we should expect that the foundations in other cases meet
those conditions</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
</SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#conditions">[3</A><A HREF="#conditions">6</A><A HREF="#conditions">]</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">1</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">3.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">4</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">.
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">H</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">eat and
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">Craig’s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">foundational </FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">conditions</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">.
</FONT></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let's
consider the account of heat in terms of molecular motion. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">H</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">eat
is identified with molecular motion</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">molecular
motion </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#OFOMV"><U>does not meet</U></A><A HREF="#OFOMV"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
all of</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#OFOMV"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Craig's condition OFOMV1-</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">5</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#conditions"><U>[</U></A><A HREF="#conditions"><U>3</U></A><A HREF="#conditions"><U>6</U></A><A HREF="#conditions"><U>]</U></A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In particular, the fact is that there is no paradigm of heat, so
molecular motion does not meet <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition 5</A>.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Someone might suggest that some past cases of molecular motion are
the paradigmatic object, but that seems absurdly implausible. How
would a past state of molecular motion be a paradigm of molecular
motion?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, that's clearly <I>not </I>what the account of heat in terms
of molecular motion actually holds.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Perhaps, someone might suggest that having a paradigmatic example of
a molecule would suffice, but that does not work, either. How would a
molecule be a paradigm of molecular <I>motion? </I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, there does not seem to exist a paradigmatic example of
molecules, either – not that that would seem to suffice. Would
a water molecule be a paradigmatic example? Or maybe a methane
molecule? It seems <I>extremely</I> plausible that neither of them
would be.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Trying to go into subatomic particles, etc., would not be of help,
either, and for similar reasons.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In short, molecular motion does not meet <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition
5</A>. But then, why should we expect that the ontological foundation
of objective moral values and/or objective moral duties meet
condition 5, if there is such a foundation?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
The burden would be on the defender of <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition 5</A>.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Perhaps, someone might insist that heat is identified with <I>actual</I>
molecular motion, present or past, or perhaps future too depending on
the theory of time. However, that too does not give us a <I>paradigm</I>
of heat, so condition 5 still would not obtain.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, in any case, molecular motion does not meet <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition
5</A>. Still, <I>perhaps </I>Craig does not demand condition 5.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In any case, condition 5 is not met, so let’s leave condition 5
aside, and let’s focus on the other conditions. Does molecular
motion meet all of the other conditions?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If it does <I>not</I>, then we may ask: why should we expect that an
ontological foundation of objective moral values meet such
conditions, if there is such a foundation?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But if molecular motion <I>does </I>meet <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition</A><A HREF="#OFOMV">s
1-4</A>, then in particular the account of heat in terms of molecular
motion is identifying <I>actual </I>cases of heat with <I>actual
</I>cases of molecular motion – not with some abstract ideal
molecular motion – and apparently also heat in [some]
counterfactual scenarios with molecular motion in those
counterfactual scenarios.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, in <I>that </I>case, and mirroring the case of heat and
molecular motion, perhaps actual cases of moral goodness and
obligations may be properly identified with some <I>actual</I> mental
states or traits, including perhaps cases of actual intent, choices,
etc., describable by non-moral concepts, and similarly for
counterfactuals. More precisely, moral goodness would be identified
with the property of having such-and-such mental states, traits, and
to have a moral obligation would be to have such-and-such states,
etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
That account would seem not to require God, and Craig provides no
good reason to rule this out.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
At this point, someone might ask things like: 'But how would moral
goodness just attach itself to some actual mental states or traits,
etc.?', suggesting that there is a problem with that suggested
account. But for that matter, one may similarly ask: 'But how would
heat just attach itself to molecular motion?'.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
The problem with that kind of questions is that, on the heat account,
heat <I>just is</I> molecular motion. And in the suggestion in the
moral case, to be morally good just <I>is </I>to have some actual
mental states/properties – including intent, choices, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In brief:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>a.</B> Molecular motion does not meet <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition
5</A>, which Craig probably demands – though that's not
entirely clear, as I mentioned earlier.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>b.</B> <I><B>If </B></I>molecular motion fails to meet one or more
of the other conditions, then why would an ontological foundation of
objective moral values, if there is one, meet all of those
conditions?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
A similar question may be asked with regard to objective moral
duties.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Craig provides no good reason to think it's required in either case.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>c.</B> <I><B>If </B></I>molecular motion meets <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition</A><A HREF="#OFOMV">s
1-4</A>, then in particular the account of heat in terms of molecular
motion is identifying <I>actual </I>cases of heat with <I>actual
</I>cases of molecular motion, not with some abstract ideal molecular
motion, and also heat in [some] counterfactual scenarios with
molecular motion in those counterfactual scenarios.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But in <I>that </I>case, mirroring the case of heat and molecular
motion, perhaps <I>actual </I>objective moral goodness is identified
with some actual mental states, traits, etc. - and a similar result
holds for moral obligations, and for counterfactuals.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
At this point, a defender of Craig's argument might say that those
accounts do not work, because [allegedly] some properties are <I>valued</I>
and others are not, and then, moral goodness, as a valued property,
is not the same as any property that can be entirely described by
non-moral concepts, which is not valued. A somewhat similar objection
might be raised in the case of moral obligations. I will address the
matters <A HREF="#valued">later</A>.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="watercraig"></A>
<B><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">13.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">5</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">.
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">Water and </FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">Craig’s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">
foundational</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"> conditions. </FONT></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let's now turn to the account of water in terms of H2O. Water is
identified with H2O, but H2O <A HREF="#OFOMVD">does not meet</A><A HREF="#OFOMVD">
all of</A><A HREF="#OFOMV"> Craig's condition OFOMV1-</A>5.<A HREF="#conditions">[</A><A HREF="#conditions">3</A><A HREF="#conditions">6</A><A HREF="#conditions">]</A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
At least, H2O does not meet <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition 5</A>, since
there is no concrete paradigm of H2O, no paradigmatic molecule.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, someone might suggest that water molecules are all
interchangeable because somehow they have some identical intrinsic
properties – or something like that -, so any of them will do
as a paradigm. However, even leaving aside isotopes, the problem of
defining 'intrinsic' and other issues, that does not seem to work,
either, since:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>I.</B> A paradigm apparently has to <I>determine</I> what water
is. But a liquid is not water in virtue of being like some specific,
actual molecule.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>II.</B><B> </B>The account of water in terms of H2O <I>does not
depend on whether all molecules of water have identical intrinsic
properties. </I>In fact, the account would not fail if, in the
future, we were to find out that, say, subatomic particles have some
differences – and then, so do H2O molecules -, which are not
detectable by the experiments carried out so far but require far more
advanced technology and resources. So, even assuming for the sake of
the argument that condition 5 would somehow be met if there are
intrinsically identical particles, the point is that we would have a
satisfactory account of water in terms of informative identification<I>
</I><I>even if </I><I>the particles were not intrinsically identical,
and </I><I>condition </I><I>5 </I><I>were not me</I><I>t</I><I>. </I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, in short, plausibly condition 5 is not met in the case of H2O,
either, but moreover, the account seems to work <I>regardless</I> of
whether it's met.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Since condition 5 is plausibly not met in the case of H2O, why should
we expect that the ontological foundation or foundations of objective
moral values and/or duties meet condition 5?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, if the account of water in terms of H2O would be
satisfactory regardless of whether condition 5 is met, why should a
proposed account of objective moral values and duties in terms of
informative identification that does not meet condition 5 be rejected
just because of it?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
The burden would be on the defender of <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition</A><A HREF="#OFOMV">
5</A><A HREF="#OFOMV">.</A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Also if someone suggested an ideal molecule of water, or some
Platonic form, that would be in conflict with either condition 2
and/or condition 1; moreover, if <I>that </I>were acceptable in the
case of water, why not in the moral case?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In any case, the fact is that H2O does not meet <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition</A><A HREF="#OFOMV">
5</A>. Still, <I>perhaps </I>Craig does not demand condition 5.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Regardless, condition 5 is not met, so let's leave condition 5 aside,
and let's focus on the other conditions. Does H2O motion meet all of
the other <A HREF="#OFOMV">conditions</A>?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
If it does <I>not</I>, then we may ask: why should we expect that an
ontological foundation of objective moral values meet such
conditions, if there is such a foundation?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But if H2O <I>does </I>meet <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition</A><A HREF="#OFOMV">s
1-4</A>, then in particular the account of water in terms of H2O is
identifying <I>actual </I><I>water </I>with <I>actual </I><I>H2O</I>
and apparently also water in [some] counterfactual scenarios with H2O
in those counterfactual scenarios, in which cases the <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition</A><A HREF="#OFOMV">s
1-4</A> should be understood relative to those scenarios.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, in <I>that </I>case, and mirroring the case of water and
H2O, perhaps actual cases of moral goodness and obligations may be
properly identified with some <I>actual</I> mental states or traits,
including perhaps cases of actual intent, choices, etc., describable
by non-moral concepts, and similarly for counterfactuals. More
precisely, moral goodness would be identified with the property of
having such-and-such mental states, traits, and to have a moral
obligation would be to have such-and-such states, etc. That account
would seem not to require God, and Craig provides no good reason to
rule this out.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
At this point, someone might ask things like: 'But how would moral
goodness just attach itself to some actual mental states or traits,
etc.?', suggesting that there is a problem with that suggested
account. But for that matter, one may similarly ask: 'But how would
water just attach itself to H2O?'.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
The problem with that kind of questions is that, on the water
account, water <I>just is</I> H2O. And in the suggestion in the moral
case, to be morally good just <I>is </I>to have some actual mental
states/properties – including intent, choices, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In brief:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>a.</B> H2O does not meet <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition 5</A>, which
Craig probably demands – though that's not entirely clear, as I
mentioned earlier.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>b.</B> <I><B>If </B></I>H2O fails to meet one or more of the other
conditions, then why would an ontological foundation of objective
moral values, if there is one, meet all of those conditions?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
A similar question may be asked with regard to objective moral
duties.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Craig provides no good reason to think it's required in either case.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>c.</B> <B>I</B><I><B>f </B></I>H2O meets <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition</A><A HREF="#OFOMV">s
1-4</A>, then in particular the account of water in terms of H2O is
identifying <I>actual </I><I>water w</I>ith <I>actual </I><I>H2O, </I>and
also water in [some] counterfactual scenarios with H2O in those
counterfactual scenarios.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But in <I>that </I>case, mirroring the case of water and H2O perhaps
<I>actual </I>objective moral goodness is identified with some actual
mental states, traits, etc. - and a similar result holds for moral
obligations, and for counterfactuals.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
At this point, a defender of Craig's argument might say that those
accounts do not work, because [allegedly] some properties are <I>valued</I>
and others are not, and then, moral goodness, as a valued property,
is not the same as any property that can be entirely described by
non-moral concepts, which is not valued. A somewhat similar objection
might be raised in the case of moral obligations. I will address the
matter <A HREF="#valued">later</A>.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="birdhealth"></A><A NAME="illness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>1</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>3.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>6</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>Sick birds and </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>Craig’s</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>
</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>foundational </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>conditions</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>.
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let’s consider the hypothesis that objective bird illness does
exist, and which means or is at least equivalent to the following
conditions.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="oc11"></A><A NAME="OB1"></A>
<B>O</B><B>B</B><B>I</B><B>1: </B>Statements – or judgments, or
whatever one calls them – of the form ‘X is ill’,
where X is a bird, are objective, in the ordinary sense of the term
‘objective’ mentioned above. For instance, if someone
claims that Bob the bird is ill – Bob is a specific bird -,
then there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether that
claim is true, and so on. To use Craig’s own distinction,
whether Bob is ill is matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>O</B><B>B</B><B>I</B><B>2: </B>Some statements of the form ‘X
is ill’, are true, where X is an actual bird.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, objective bird illness does exist.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, we may ask about the ontological foundation of bird illness. But
perhaps, someone might say that illness is just the absence of
health, and as such it doesn't require an ontological foundation. But
then, we may ask about the ontological foundation of bird health.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It seems that it does not meet <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition 5</A>, one
way or another. There seems to be no paradigmatic case of an ill or a
healthy bird, for instance.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Granted, someone might claim that proper function requires God, or
something like that, and then claim that the ontological foundation
of bird health is also God, or God's choices, or something along
those lines. But that would have to be argued for. <A HREF="#proper">[37]</A>Without
that, there is no good reason to believe that if objective bird
illness or health has an ontological foundation, the foundation meets
<A HREF="#OFOMV">co</A><A HREF="#OFOMV">ndition 5</A>, and it seems
implausible.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But if the ontological foundation in question – assuming there
is one – fails to meet condition 5, what about the other
conditions?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
As in the case of <A HREF="#watercraig">water</A> and <A HREF="#heat2">heat</A>,
we may consider two cases:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>1.</B><I><B> If</B></I> the ontological foundation of bird illness
or health – whatever it might be, assuming there is one –
fails to meet one or more of the <A HREF="#OFOMV">conditions 1-4</A>,
why would a foundation of objective moral values or duties – if
there is one – to meet all of them?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>2. </B><I><B>If</B></I><I> </I>the ontological foundation of bird
illness or health – whatever it might be, assuming there is one
– meets <A HREF="#OFOMV">conditions 1-4</A> but not condition
5, it seems that the foundation is plausibly actual states or events
[or hypothetical ones in counterfactual scenarios], and then a
parallel for moral goodness and moral duties seems to be available,
as described in the cases of <A HREF="#watercraig">water</A> and
<A HREF="#heat2">heat</A>.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="colorcondition"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>13.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>7</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>Green
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>stuff
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>and
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>Craig’s</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>foundational
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>conditions.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
we saw </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#color">earlier</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
objective color does exist; here, to simplify, let's consider
objective green only. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Th</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e
hypothesis that objective </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">green
– or greenness, if one prefers – </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
exist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">means
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
same as</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
conjunction of the following two conditions, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
is at least equivalent to it. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>OG1:</B> Statements – or judgments, or whatever one calls
them – of the form ‘X is green’, are objective, in
the ordinary sense of the term ‘objective’ mentioned
above. For instance, if someone claims that the cucumber on the table
is green, then there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether
that claim is true, and so on. To use Craig’s own distinction,
whether the cucumber on the table is green is not a matter of
opinion, or a matter of taste. It's a matter of fact.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>OG2:</B> Some statements of the form ‘X is green’ are
true, where X is an actual object.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
So, objective green exists. But is there an ontological foundation of
objective green, matching <A HREF="#OFOMV">Craig's conditions</A>?
<A HREF="#conditions"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#conditions"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">3</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#conditions"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">6</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#conditions"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It seems plausible that there is not, for the following reasons:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Since objective green existed long before there were any humans, any
ontological foundation that is some actual humans, or some aspect or
state of some actual humans, would not match </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#OFOMV">condition
2</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Ideal things and/or abstract objects are not</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
an option</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
due to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#OFOMV"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">conditions
1 and 2</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>c.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Specific, actual photons </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
the past, or present, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">very
plausibly </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
not </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">meet</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#OFOMV">condition 5</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>d. </B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Specific,
actual objects with certain reflective properties in the past or
present would plausibly not meet </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#OFOMV"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">condition
5</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
either. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In particular, on an account in terms of wavelengths, light, etc. -
which is more or less common, I think -, the ontological foundation
of objective green would not meet <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition 5</A>.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
As for the other conditions, it seems to meet them as long as the
account identifies actual instances of green with actual instances of
some reflective/emitting properties, etc., and makes similar
identifications in [some] counterfactual scenarios. However, in that
case, a similar account may be offered in the cases of objective
moral goodness and objective moral duties, as explained in the
analysis of the cases of <A HREF="#watercraig">water</A> and <A HREF="#heat2">heat</A>,
and Craig has provided no good reason to block that account.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
At this point, a defender of Craig's argument might say that those
accounts do not work, because [allegedly] some properties are <I>valued</I>
and others are not, and then, moral goodness, as a valued property,
is not the same as any property that can be entirely described by
non-moral concepts, which is not valued. Similarly, he might say that
obligations are either valued or normative, whereas properties
describable by non-moral concepts entirely, are not. I will address
the matter <A HREF="#valued">later</A>.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="kindness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>13.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>8</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>O</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>bjective
kindness and </B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Craig’s</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>foundational
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>conditions.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let's consider the hypothesis that objective kindness does exist,
which means the same or is at least equivalent to the following two
conditions:</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>O</B><B>K</B><B>1:</B> Statements – or judgments, or
whatever one calls them – of the form ‘A is kind’,
are objective, in the ordinary sense of the term ‘objective’
mentioned above. For instance, if someone claims that Alice is a kind
person – Alice is a specific person -, then there is an
objective fact of the matter as to whether that claim is true, and so
on. To use Craig’s own distinction, whether Alice is a kind
person is not a matter of opinion, or a matter of taste.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>O</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>K</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2:</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Some</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
statements of the form ‘</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">kind',
or 'A is a kind </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">person</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or 'A is a kind agent', or 'A is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">behaving
in a kind manner</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">',
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
'A behaved in a kind manner', where A is an actual agent, or
generally statements asserting that some actual entity A or some
actual behavior B is kind, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">true</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
since some </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">humans</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
are kind</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
person</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we can tell that objective kindness does exist. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
someone might suggest that no human is a kind person. But that seems
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">absurd.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Under
a usual understanding of the concept</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of kindness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
some humans are </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">obviously
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">kind
people, even if </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">clearly
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
maximally kind. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
it's enough that sometimes some </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">humans
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
kind to other </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">humans</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">sometimes
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
order for objective kindness to exist. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, we can tell, based on our observation of human behavior that
objective kindness does exist.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">We
may then consider questions</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
such as: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Does objective kindness have an ontological foundation, in the
relevant sense</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
a proper ontological account of kindness in terms of informative
identification? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
If the answer to a. is affirmative, does the ontological foundation
of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objective
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">kindness
meet </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">all
of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#OFOMV"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig's
conditions</SPAN></U></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">?
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Before
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">assessing
those questions, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let's
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">point
out</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– just in case, considering some potential objections –
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">tha</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t
k</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">indness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
akin to moral goodness in the sense that it supervenes o</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
mental properties of an agent</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
described by concepts other than the concept of kindness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="duplicatekind"></A>
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
example</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
let's say</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A13
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
an agent that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">perceives,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">remembers,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">desires,
feels, generally subjectively experiences, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">believes,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">intends</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">chooses</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S13
the same as A</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">perceives,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">remembers,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">desires,
feels, generally subjectively experiences, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">believes,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">intends</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">chooses</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S14.
That includes their making the same free choices in the respective
cases</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
the same reasons. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
clear that A13 is a kind </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">person
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
and only if A14 is a kind </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">person</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
the</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
two are </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">kind
to the same degree – or unkind to the same degree, if they
happen to be unkind </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">persons</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, if their minds are a match in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">all
of that</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">they’re</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
also a match with respect to kindness. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let’s now address questions a. and b.:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Does objective kindness have an ontological foundation, in the
relevant sense</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
a proper ontological account of kindness in terms of informative
identification? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">don’t</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
know</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
wonder: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Why
would </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objective
kindness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
have </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
an</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
ontological foundation? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">And
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objective
kindness does not have an ontological foundation, why would objective
moral goodness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
have one</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">?
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">assume
for now </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
objective kindness does have an ontological foundation</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in the relevant sense</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
turn to the second question. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
If the answer to a. is affirmative, does the ontological foundation
of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objective
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">kindness
meet</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
all of</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#OFOMV"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig's
conditions</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">?</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Again, I do not see why it would.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
particular, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
consider the fifth condition</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– though, granted, it's not certain that Craig requires it. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
That condition, in the case of moral goodness, is the following
condition:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>OF</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>OMV</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>5</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>:</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">X
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
aspect, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
state of</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
X, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.)
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">provides
a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">paradigm,
a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">measure
based on </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">which
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">goodness
is determined, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
such a way that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">nothing
would be morally good if</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
X did not exist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Also, this paradigm is in some way akin to the paradigmatic meter bar
in the past.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In the case of kindness, the condition would be:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>OF</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>O</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>K</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>5</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>:</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">X
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
aspect, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
state of</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
X, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.)
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">provides
a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">paradigm,
a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">measure
based on </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">which
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">kindness
i</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s
determined, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
such a way that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">nothing
would be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">kind
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
X did not exist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Also, this paradigm is in some way akin to the paradigmatic meter bar
in the past.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
what might </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
a paradigm of kindness? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">At
this point</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">someone
might c</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">l</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">aim
that the ontological foundation of objective kindness is God</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
be kind is to resemble God</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in some way</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ontological
foundation meets all of</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#OFOMV">condition 5</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
why should we believe </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
even suspect </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that?
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">How
many ontological foundations is God supposed to be?</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Should
we also believe that if God did not exist, objective kindness would
not exist? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
All of that would have to be defended by the claimant.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Alternatively,
someone might c</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">laim
that there is some relevant difference between objective kindness and
objective moral goodness, so that the former </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">plausibly
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
no ontological foundation or no ontological foundation that meets
Craig's conditions, but the latter</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
plausibly</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
does. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
that would have to be argued for. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
C</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">raig</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'s
metaethical</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
argument is an ontological metaethical argument, not a semantic one,
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
does not </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">seem
to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">press
open question argument</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
at least not in that context and to the best of my knowledge</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
But perhaps, someone might suggest something along those lines,
claiming that there is a difference </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
moral goodness and</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
kindness that is relevant when it comes to whether there are
ontological foundations, or ontological foundations of a certain
kind, and which is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">based
on semantically open vs. closed questions. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it's
not clear that there is such difference. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
example, the question 'I know that Dick </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">inflicts
excruciating pain on</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
children every day, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">purely
for pleasure, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but
is he a morally good person?' appears no more open</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to me</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">than
the ques</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ion
'I know that Dick </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">inflicts
excruciating pain on</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
children every day, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">purely
for pleasure, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but
is he a kind person?'</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
someone might claim</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">say
– that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">only
the first question is open, or that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">both
questions above are open, but that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
is only a particular case when it comes to kindness, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">whereas</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
other, relevant questions about kindness are closed, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
relevant questions remain open in the case of moral goodness. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But the burden would be on the claimant.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="kindconditions"></A>
As it is, it seems that the ontological foundation of objective
kindness, if there is one, does not meet <A HREF="#OFOMV">condition
5</A>. <I>Perhaps</I>, Craig does not demand that a foundation meets
condition 5. But in any case, let's consider the other <A HREF="#OFOMV">fo</A><A HREF="#OFOMV">ur
conditions</A>:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>1. </B><I><B>If</B></I><I> </I>objective kindness has no
ontological foundation, why would objective moral goodness have one?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
2. <I><B>If </B></I>objective kindness has an ontological foundation
that fails to meet one or more of the <A HREF="#OFOMV">conditions
1-4,</A> why would objective moral goodness have one that does?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
3. <I><B>If </B></I>objective kindness has an ontological foundation
that meets conditions 1-4, since it does not meet condition 5,
plausibly it would be some combination of mental states or traits
describable by concepts other than the concept of kindness, or moral
concepts. But then, as in the case of <A HREF="#watercraig">water</A>
and <A HREF="#heat2">heat</A>, a similar account may be offered in
the case of moral value, and of moral duty.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="cruelty"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>13.9. Objective cruelty and Craig’s
foundational conditions. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let's assess the hypothesis <I>that objective cruelty exists</I>,
which means or is at least equivalent to the following two
conditions:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>O</B><B>CR</B><B>1:</B> Statements – or judgments, or
whatever one calls them – of the form ‘A is cruel’,
are objective, in the ordinary sense of the term ‘objective’
mentioned above. For instance, if someone claims that Dick is a cruel
person – Dick is a specific agent -, then there is an objective
fact of the matter as to whether that claim is true, and so on. To
use Craig’s own distinction, whether Dick is cruel is not a
matter of opinion, or a matter of taste.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>O</B><B>CR</B><B>2:</B> Some statements of the form ‘A is
cruel', or 'A is a cruel', or 'A is a cruel agent', or 'A is behaving
in a cruel manner', are true, where A is an actual thing.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, it seems obviously true that objective cruelty does exist.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Before we go on, and in order to preclude some potential objections,
let's establish first that cruelty is <I><B>not</B></I><I> </I>an
absence of kindness, or an absence of love, or both, or a similar
absence.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
To see that, let's consider the following scenario:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Scenario S12: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In the Andromeda galaxy, advanced aliens made an enormously
intelligent cyborg, Zantarly, believing it would help them develop
new technologies more quickly. But they made a serious mistake during
the design process. As a result, they ended up with a being who cares
about no one's interests but its own, and who is also willing to use
any resources it finds to its advantage and with no regard for any
other agent. Zantarly destroyed its creators by the most efficient
method it found, and took over their planet. After that, it went to
other planets, and then to other planetary systems, consuming
resources and killing trillions of complex living organisms, just to
use the resources for its goals, which are basically controlling more
space without rivals, surviving for as long as it can without any
suffering, and a number of means-to-ends goals.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, Zantarly has no kindness whatsoever. It also has no love, or
similar feelings. It does care about itself, but for no other agent.
The lives or suffering of others isn't even a consideration for
Zantarly.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
On the other hand, Zantarly is not interested in causing anyone any
suffering for the sake of it, either. Zantarly simply does not care
at all about the suffering of others, one way or another, and so it
causes a lot of suffering, but always goes for the most efficient
method of extermination, and it's usually very fast, compared with
most other alternatives.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
On a different galaxy, very distant and very similar to the Andromeda
galaxy, there is another cyborg, Zindur, who is as intelligent as
Zantarly, and equally advanced scientifically and technologically.
Like Zantarly, Zindur is completely devoid of kindness, love, and any
similar traits. It values itself just as Zantarly values itself, but
that is all.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Also, like Zantarly in the Andromeda galaxy, Zindur travels through
the galaxy where it resides, destroying other beings and consuming
resources, in similar numbers and amounts as Zantarly, respectively.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, there is a the following difference between the two: in most
cases, when it finds civilizations, Zindur does not choose a fast
method of extermination. Instead, it keeps a good number of
individuals alive for the purposes of torturing them for pleasure,
and it now has a collection of billions of intelligent, social and
usually kind beings; those beings are tortured by Zindur for their
entire lives, only for the purpose of entertainment, and with no hope
of escape.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In scenario S12, Zindur is <I>more </I>cruel than Zantarly, even
though they both equally lack all love, kindness, and any similar
property. Also, similarly, in scenario S12, Zindur’s behavior
is overall <I>more</I> cruel than Zantarly’s behavior, even
though both Zindur’s and Zantarly’s behaviors are
completely devoid of any love or kindness.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Hence, cruelty is not just the absence of one of those properties, or
any similar one, since in that case Zindur and Zantarly would be
<I>equally</I> cruel, and so would be their behaviors.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Now, let’s point out – just in case – that cruelty
supervenes on mental properties described by concepts other than the
concept of cruelty.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="duplicatekind1"></A>
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
example</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
say</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">5</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
an agent that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">perceives,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">remembers,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">desires,
feels, generally subjectively experiences, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">believes,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">intends</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">chooses</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">5</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the same as A</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">6</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">perceives,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">remembers,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">desires,
feels, generally subjectively experiences, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">believes,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">intends</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">chooses</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
scenario </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">16</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
That includes their making the same free choices in the respective
cases</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
the same reasons. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Then, it’s clear that A15 is a cruel person if and only if A16
is a cruel person. Moreover, the two are cruel to the same degree, if
they are cruel. In other words, if their minds are a match in all of
that, then they’re also a match with respect to cruelty.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let’s now ask:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Does objective </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cruelty</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
have an ontological foundation, in the relevant sense</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
a proper ontological account of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cruelty</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in terms of informative identification? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">don’t</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
know</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
wonder: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Why
would </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objective
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cruelty</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
have </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
an</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
ontological foundation? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">And
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objective
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cruelty</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
does not have an ontological foundation, why would objective moral
goodness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
have one</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">?
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">assume
for now </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
objective </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cruelty</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
does have an ontological foundation</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in the relevant sense</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and let's turn to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">another</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
question</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>b</B><B>.</B> If the answer to a. is affirmative, does the
ontological foundation of objective cruelty meet all of Craig’s<A HREF="#OFOMV"><U>
conditions</U></A>?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It seems clear that that is not the case. In particular, the fifth
condition is probably not met – though, granted, it's not
certain that Craig requires it.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
That condition, in the case of moral goodness, is the following
condition:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>OF</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>OMV</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>5</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>:</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">X
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
aspect, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
state of</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
X, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.)
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">provides
a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">paradigm,
a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">measure
based on </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">which
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">goodness
is determined, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
such a way that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">nothing
would be morally good if</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
X did not exist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Also, this paradigm is in some way akin to the paradigmatic meter bar
in the past.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In the case of kindness, the condition would be:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>OF</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>O</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>CR</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>5</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>:</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">X
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
aspect, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
state of</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
X, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.)
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">provides
a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">paradigm,
a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">measure
based on </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">which
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cruelty</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
i</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s
determined, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
such a way that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">nothing
would be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cruel</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
X did not exist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Also, this paradigm is in some way akin to the paradigmatic meter bar
in the past.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But what might be a paradigm of cruelty?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">At
this point</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">someone
might c</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">l</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">aim
that the ontological foundation of objective </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cruelty</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is God</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
be kind is to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">dissimilar
to</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
God</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in some way</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ontological
foundation meets</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#OFOMV">condition 5</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
why should we believe </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
even suspect </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that?
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">How
many ontological foundations is God supposed to be?</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Incidentally</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it seems that the God option is not available to Craig</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in the case of cruelty</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
for the following reason:</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">i</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
his defense of his metaethical argument, Craig maintains that if God
did not exist, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">rape
would be cruel but not morally wrong</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r27"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r27"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">27</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r21c">]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
all of the reasons I'm giving, I do</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
not</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
think </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
has </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">provided
any good reasons to even </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">suspect</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">rape
would not be morally wrong</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
if God did not exist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
b</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ut
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
aside, the fact that Craig says that if God did not exist, rape would
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">still
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cruel</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">indicates</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that Craig</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
does not believe that the ontological foundation </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
objective cruelty</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
based on G</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">od</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Perhaps, someone say argue that there is a difference between
objective moral goodness and objective cruelty that is relevant in
this context, and so that only objective moral goodness has an
ontological foundation meeting all of <A HREF="#OFOMV"><U>Craig's
conditions</U></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">, including
condition 5.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">But
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">the burden would be on the
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">person making that claim.
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Regarding the issue of
open vs. closed questions, the case of cruelty is handled in a manner
similar to the case of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">objective
</SPAN><A HREF="#openquestion">kindness</A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Perhaps, </SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">though,
Craig does not require condition 5. But in any case, if objective
cruelty has an ontological foundation, it does not meet condition 5,
so let's consider the other conditions. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Here
too, the matter is handled as in the case of objective </SPAN></SPAN><I><A HREF="#kindconditions">kindness</A></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="greatness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>13.10.
Objec</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>tive
greatness.</B></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
I already raised an objection to Craig’s foundational account
based on the idea of <A HREF="#circularity">greatness</A>. But in
this part of the essay, I’m leaving aside for the sake of the
argument anything in subsection <A HREF="#craignoexplain">13.2</A>,
in order to give mutually independent arguments against Craig’s
metaethical argument, so I will address the matter again, this time
asking for an ontological foundation of objective greatness.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let's assess the hypothesis <I>that objective grea</I><I>tness
ex</I><I>i</I><I>sts</I>, which means or is at least equivalent to
the following two conditions:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B>O</B><B>G</B><B>R</B><B>1:</B> Statements – or judgments, or
whatever one calls them – of the form ‘A is great’,
are objective, in the ordinary sense of the term ‘objective’
mentioned above. For instance, if someone claims that Alice is a
great person – Alice is a specific agent -, then there is an
objective fact of the matter as to whether that claim is true, and so
on. To use Craig’s own distinction, whether Alice is great is
not a matter of opinion, or a matter of taste.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>O</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>G</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>R</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>2:
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Some
statements of the form ‘</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">great</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">',
are </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">true,
where </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
an actual thing. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Does objective greatness exist?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
is committed to an affirmative answer, since his conception of God is
the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#traditional">GCB</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
conception – i.e., Craig</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">defines
</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
term 'God' in that fashion – so </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
by definition the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">greatest
conceivable being</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
-</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and claims God exists. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r5">[r5]</A><A HREF="#r5b">[r5b]</A><A HREF="#r25"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r25]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
already raised some </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#circularity">objections</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to that definition, but </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I’m</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
leaving that aside here as well. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
we may ask</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">someone
defending </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
arguments</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
what is the ontological foundation of objective greatness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
in the sense of informative identification</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">?
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#30"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[30]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
someone might suggest that God is the ontological foundation of
objective greatness, and that to be great is to resemble God.
However, the term 'God' is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">defined
</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
'The greatest conceivable being', so a hypothesis that to be great is
to resemble God </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">means
the same </SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
a hypothesis that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
be great is to resemble the greatest conceivable being.</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Surely,
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
no</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
an </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">informative
</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">identification.
In fact,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
such an account</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
would be viciously circular</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Of
course, to say that to be the greatest conceivable being is to have
all great-making properties to a maximal degree or something along
those lines would not resolve the problem: the circularity would
remain, and would be just as vicious.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
someone might say that the ball has to stop somewhere, and there is
no informative identification account of greatness. But</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
if there is no such account in the case of greatness on Craig's
views, then why should we accept his claim that there is such account
in the case of moral goodness? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="valued"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>13.1</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>1</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>.
Valued pr</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>operties?
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Earlier,
I suggested a potential account of moral goodness in terms of mental
states and/or traits – including, perhaps, decision,
intentions, etc. - describable in non-moral concepts, mirroring the
cases of </SPAN></SPAN><I><A HREF="#watercraig">water/H2O</A></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
and </SPAN></SPAN><I><A HREF="#heat2">heat</A></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">/molecular
motion, and also suggested one potential objection in terms of value</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">To
be clear, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">I’m</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
merely considering this potential alternative, but </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">I’m</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
not suggesting Craig would raise this particular objection. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So,
a</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">ccording
to </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">this</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">potential
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">objection,
the properties in question </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">can</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">not
be identical because one of them – moral goodness – is
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">[in
some sense] </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">a
valued property, whereas </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">the
properties of having some </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">mental
traits, states, etc., </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">describable
by means of non-moral </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">concepts</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
are not valued properties. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
But here, we may ask some questions, like:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Is there a difference between valued and non-valued properties?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">If
so, w</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">hat
is for a property to be valued? </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">More
precisely, i</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">n
</SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">what sense </SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">is
moral goodness – allegedly – a valued property? </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
We may consider two alternatives:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>1.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>If</B></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
to say that a property is valued is to </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">merely
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">say
that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">it’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
a property picked by the concept of moral goodness, or moral badness,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">or
generally some moral concept, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">etc.,
then </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">as
long as properties such as greenness or heat are picked by non-color
or non-heat concepts respectively – like </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">some
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">concepts
involving wavelengths, etc.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
or the concept of molecular motion -, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">there
is no good reason to think that the same can’t apply to moral
properties.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">2.</SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
If </SPAN></I></B><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
say that a property is valued is to say that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
valued by some agent or another – say, normal humans -, that
also does not constitute a problem for a proposed identification
between moral goodness and the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">properties
of having some </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">mental
traits, states, etc., </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">describable
by means of non-moral </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">concepts</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
say that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
n</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">either
1. nor</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
2. Then, the question remains: in which sense </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘valued’</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
might an</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
objector clai</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">m</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that the property </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
moral goodness </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">valued</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
property</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">?
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
burden to explain himself would be on the person raising this
objection. Without such clarification, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
it's not clear how </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
make sense of</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
it</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
instance, 't</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">o
value' is a verb. Agents value. There are properties that are valued
by </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">agents,
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
example </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
the case of normal humans,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
usually or always </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">kindness
and moral goodness are positively valued</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
by such agents</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
whereas cruelty and moral </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">badness
are negatively valued</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
by such agents</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
comprehensible. But given that the objection is not about what agents
value, and not about alternative 1. above, either, then what is it
about? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
aside, I will consider some potential replies, which might depend on
how the person raising </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#valued"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
objection I'm considering in this subsection</SPAN></U></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
explains the claim of a valued property. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
instance, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
may consider options: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s
k</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">indness
a positively valued property, and cruelty a negatively valued one? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">And
w</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">hat
about illness or healthiness? </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Cowardice
and bravery? </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Aren't
those valued properties? </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So,
let's consider </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">kindness
and cruelty. Craig himself says that rape would still be cruel if God
did not exist, even if he claims it would not be morally wrong </SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r27"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">[r27]</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
Perhaps, other theists might </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">claim</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
otherwise, but of course that would have to be argued for.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
Without</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
that, there is no good reason to suspect that if God did not exist,
there would be no kind people and no cruel people</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So,
let's</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
first le</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">t's
first assume that cruelty</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">[kindness]
is a valued property</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
– whatever that means. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Then</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
i</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">f
cruelty</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">[kindness]
has no ontological foundation, then there are valued properties with
no ontological foundation. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">If
cruelty</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">[kindness]
has an ontological foundation</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
in terms of informative identification</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
then </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">either
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">cruelty
is informatively identified with a </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">non-valued
property, or it's </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">informatively
identified with a </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">valued
property. If </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">it's
informatively identified with a</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
valued property, we repeat the process. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
the end, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
alternatives are infinite regress of informative identifications of
valued properties not grounded in God, a valued property with no
ontological foundation, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
a valued property </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
is informatively identified with a non-valued property. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
is a valued property </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">identified
with </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
non-valued property,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">blocks
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#valued"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
objection I'm considering in this subsection</SPAN></U></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, if there is infinite regress of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">informative
identification of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">valued
properties not grounded in God, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
a valued property with no ontological foundation, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
may suggest the same might be the case for moral </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">properties</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Either
way, the metaethical argument </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">seems
to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">remain
blocked. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So, what if cruelty and kindness
are not valued properties? We may run a similar argument with
properties like bravery</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"> or
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">cowardice</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
healthiness or illness</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">But </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">what
if none of them are valued</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">?
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might even claim that cruelty, kindness, etc., are valued properties
because God exists, but they wouldn't be valued properties if he did
not</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
even if they were instantiated</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s
before, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
key question here</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is:
w</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hat
does it mean for a property to be valued</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
in the sense of this objection</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">?
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">The burden to explain what they
mean </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">by 'valued property'
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">would be on the person
making that claim, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">and</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
as I pointed out earlier, it seems difficult to make sense of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">a
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">claim</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
of that sort</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"> without such
clarification. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Still, another potential reply to
this objection – </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">as
before</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">, depending on how
the objector construes the term – is based on s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">cenarios
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">involving alien minds,
like </SPAN><A HREF="#cruelty"><U>scena</U></A><A HREF="#cruelty"><U>rio
12</U></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">, or an </SPAN><A HREF="#cyborg2"><U>earlier
cyborg</U></A><A HREF="#cyborg2"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></A><A HREF="#cyborg2"><U>scenario</U></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
or similar </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">scenarios</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
As I mentioned earlier, normal humans, such agents [at least usually]
positively value kindness and moral goodness, and negatively value
cruelty and moral badness.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ome
of the aliens in those hypothetical scenarios do</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
not </SPAN></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">value
kindness positively</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
ever</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and do not value cruelty negatively either, except, perhaps, to the
extent that someone might be cruel towards </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">them.
</SPAN></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
even then, what they may actually value negatively in that case is
not the cruelty itself – which depends on the mind of the agent
being cruel only, regardless of results</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-,
but rather the pain they might experience as a result. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Moreover, some of those aliens place no value whatsoever in moral
goodness, or moral badness.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
those aliens are hypothetical. But they're not contradictory, and
furthermore, in cases this makes a difference, they seem to be
metaphysically possible. In fact, for all we know, some aliens
relevantly similar </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
those </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">might
even be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actual</SPAN></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">We
don't really know one way or another. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">The point I'm trying to make is
that the positive or negative evaluation </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">of
the properties </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">seems to be
on the mind of the agents making the evaluation. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Else,
should those agents consider also that they are valued properties
based on what </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">they
</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">value, and ask for the
ontological grounding of </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">those
</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">properties? </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
example, let's </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">consider
the following scenario: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="species18"></A>
<B>Scenario 18: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">There
is a planet where some intelligent, social aliens evolved, say
species#18. They have </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">common
language for their entire species, and part of their language</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
resembles moral language and is based on something that resembles
human moral intuitions. However, there is no perfect match. Even
under no error, their sense of species#18-moral-goodness and the
human sense of moral goodness diverge in some cases. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
They also have language similar to language of obligations, and more
or less similar intuitions.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Should
species#18 philosophers conclude that there is a necessary being who
is the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ontological
foundation </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">species#18-moral-goodness,
which would be something other than moral goodness</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so that the being in question is not God, but species#18-God</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">?
</SPAN></SPAN></I>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
a defende</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of Craig's metaethical argument may simply say that aliens like that
are</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">metaphysically
impossible, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but
in particular that involves a claim about exobiology encompassing the
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">entire
universe. Why should we believe such a claim? It seems humans do not
have at this point the knowledge to make such a claim in a justified
manner. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Alternatively,
he might say that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">either
they or us would be mistaken about moral goodness, rather than there
being something like species#18-goodness</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
But that is a problem as well.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Furthermore,
t</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">here
might aliens that are far more different and that have nothing
particularly similar to a sense of moral goodness, even though they
too would value some things</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and have some language associated with some of those evaluations</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Should we conclude that those aliens would be massively in error, or
that we would be? </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
there are many different species with pairwise different evaluations,
etc., should we conclude that nearly all of those aliens are in
error? That too would seem to be an unjustified claim about
exobiology. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
w</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hat
if our successors in a distant future where to </SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">contact</SPAN></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
aliens like</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that? </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Intuitively,
it seems clear to me that the humans or post-humans</SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#post"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[14]</SPAN></U></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in question should </SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not</SPAN></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
doubt that Hitler was a morally bad person </SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">regardless
</SPAN></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">how
some extraterrestrials value things and/or because of the kind of
language they use when making those evaluations. Nor should they
conclude that those aliens are massively mistaken</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
when making claims in their own alien language. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">My
point </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">here
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
that, in addition </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
being h</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ard
to make sense of, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#valued"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'valued
properties'</SPAN></U></A><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></U><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objection
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">may
well</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
reveal </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
commitment on the part of the defender of the metaethical argument </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
a number of unjustified claims, or at least claims he ought to
defend. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
burden to explain </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
defend </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">his
stance would be on him. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="normativity"></A>
<B><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">13.1</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">2</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
N</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">ormativity.
</SPAN></FONT></B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
addition to </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objection
based on </SPAN></SPAN><B><A HREF="#valued">value</A></B><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
defender of Craig's metaethical argument might raise an objection
based on moral obligations and normativity, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
contend that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
property of being morally obligatory is a normative property</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
some sense of </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘normative’</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
-</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">allegedly</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]
normative properties cannot be identical to non-normative properties.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
in case of the </SPAN></SPAN><B><A HREF="#valued">value</A></B><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
objection, here too </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">one</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
may </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ask
for clarification about the relevant sense of </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘normative’</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
ask why being commanded by God is normative in the relevant sense,
and so on. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
instance, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
say for the sake of the argument and for now that – as the
objection contends -, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
property of being morally obligatory is a normative property</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in some sense</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
here </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">one</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
may ask: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
the property of being commanded by God also normative? </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
If it’s not, then Craig’s account identifies a normative
property with a non-normative one.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
it is, then </SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">why
</SPAN></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
that the case? </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, why do </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
commands have the property of being normative in the relevant sense.
And what is that sense, anyway? </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
his debate with Sam Harris, Craig </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">contrasts
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">commands
given by a random stranger, and commands given by a </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">competent</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
authority. </SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r5"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r5]</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
So, someone might suggest that God's commands are normative because
they were issued by a competent authority. But why is God a </SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">competent
</SPAN></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">authority?
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might suggest that the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">property
of being normative in the relevant sense is the property of being
commanded by a competent authority. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
then, w</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hy
should we accept that the property of being morally obligatory has
the property of being normative, if the property of being normative
is the property of being commanded by a competent authority? </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Perhaps,
a defender of the metaethical argument might just say that
explanations have to stop somewhere, or something along those lines.
But the point </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">here
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
that the person raising a </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘normative’</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
objection ought to explain what </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">he
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">mean</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">by
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘normative’</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in that context, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
generally argue in support of the objection</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
addition to the above</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
here one</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
one may also co</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">nstruct
scenarios involving aliens, and</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">a. </SPAN></B><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Ask
whether those aliens should conclude that their </SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#species18"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">species#18</SPAN></U></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-moral
obligations are constituted by the commands of a being other than
God</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">b. </SPAN></B><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Point
out that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
intuitively clear that if, in the distant future, humans were to find
aliens who make evaluations and normative judgments very different
from those made by humans, have language associated to their
evaluations and normative judgments, etc., those future humans
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">shouldn’t</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
just because of that suspect that Hitler did not have a moral
obligation not to commit the Holocaust – he had that obligation
regardless of what happens with aliens on other planets</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Nor should those humans believe that those aliens would be massively
mistaken when they make those judgments in their own alien language.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">c. </SPAN></B><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Generally
raise a number of issues similar to those raised </SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#valued"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
the previous subsection</SPAN></U></A><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN></U></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
order to assess the matter in greater detail, further clarification
on the part of the objector would be required. But the previous
considerations indicate that the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘normativity’</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
objection does not appear promising for someone defending </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
metaethical argument.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">till,
perhaps a defender of the argument might suggest that somehow
morality is rationally binding, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
the sense that for any moral agent, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s
always irrational to behave immorally, and that somehow that is a
problem for non-theists. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
whether it’s irrational to behave in a certain way seems to
depend on the value structure of the agents in question. </SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
</SPAN></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
is the case that it’s always irrational for </SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">humans</SPAN></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to behave immorally, that would seem to be a matter of human
psychology. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
even in the limited case of humans or very similar beings, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
appears very </SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">implausible</SPAN></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
always </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">irrational</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to behave </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">immorally</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">To
see this, let’s consider t</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">he
following scenarios, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">one
involving a non-modified human and one involving a genetically
modified human. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<B>Scenario 19: </B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Let’s say that Joseph is a brutal dictator. He engaged in mass
murder, torture, theft, etc., all for personal gain. He’s also
a psychopath, and couldn’t care less about morality.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Regardless of whether sometimes
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Joseph</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
behaved irrationally </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">in
the process of getting to where he is</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">a</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
question </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">here </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">is
what </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">would be rational for
him to do now that he is in that position, and </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">in
particular, whether he rationally should continue to</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
suppress the expression of ideas that probably would be a threat to
the continuation of his regime, even by means of torture, murder,
etc. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">It seems to me that if he
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">rationally reckons that
the moment he loses his grip on power, some people seeking
retribution will kill him – </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">and
we may further stipulate that he does -</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">then </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">given
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">what he values</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
he rationally ought to continue s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">uppressing
the expression of ideas in that manner, even though he morally ought
not to do so. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">At the very
least, it would not be </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">irrational
</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">on his part to
continue to do that, even though it would clearly be immoral. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Scenario </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">20</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">:</SPAN></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Let’s say that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">in
a distant future, a small group of people are victorious after a
global war using all sorts of weapons of mass destruction, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">like
nuclear bombs, biological weapons, very </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">advanced
killer robots, etc. They take control of the planet, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">and
the few other survivors have little technology left. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Later,
in an internal struggle, one of the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">victors</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
Jack, uses robots to carry out a successful coup against the others,
and kills them all. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So, Jack controls the world. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Jack
sends his robots to search and destroy any piece of advanced
tech</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">nology</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
left in the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">hands </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">of
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">anyone else or abandoned,
a</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">nd to kill anyone with
knowledge of science and/or technology. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Five centuries later, Jack – who does not get old, due to
genetic engineering – rules the world unopposed, and all other
people do not know about the war, have no knowledge of history beyond
a couple of generations, and know nothing about modern science.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Jack – who is a psychopath and does not care about right or
wrong – forces people to worship him, and goes around doing as
he pleases to others; given his army of robots and his advanced
technology in general, there is no hope of resistance.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">In that scenario, it’s
obvious that Jack behaves immorally by keeping anyone else under his
thumb. But there seems to be nothing irrational about </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">that
behavior on his part</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So, the suggestion that for any
moral agent, it’s always irrational o behave immorally seems
very implausible, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">intuitively.
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">All that aside, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">there
are further problems for the defender of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Craig’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
metaethical argument; on that note, in the next subsection I will
consider the issue of whether non-theists have any significant burden
on this particular issue. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="burden"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>13.13. Non-theism, ontological foundations,
and burden.</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Let's address now questions <A HREF="#33'"><U>3</U></A><A HREF="#33'"><U>a,</U></A><A HREF="#33'"><U>
and</U></A><A HREF="#33'"><U> 3a'</U></A><U>,</U> assuming for the
sake of the argument and that the answers to <A HREF="#11'">1 and 1'</A>
are both affirmative, and even that the answers to <A HREF="#22'">2
and 2</A>' are also affirmative – even though Craig has
provided no good reason whatsoever to think so.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It seems implausible that she would have such a burden, as the
following parallels illustrate:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>I.</B> Let's take a look at one of the examples of an informative
identification given by Murphy: heat is molecular motion. <A HREF="#heat">[3</A><A HREF="#heat">8</A><A HREF="#heat">]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Through the vast majority of human history, that account was not
available.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Yet, that did not place any burden on someone rejecting previous
theories of heat to provide an account of her own. In fact, a person
rejecting previous theories of heat could have properly said that she
did not know what heat was, and that a lot more research was needed
in order to then develop a foundational account.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In particular, if someone had posited that heat was God's causing
certain sensation of people, and had challenged others to come up
with an alternative foundational account, that would not have
resulted in any burden on the people being challenged in that
fashion, and the lack of an alternative account would not have
provided any non-negligible evidence in support of theism, even if a
refutation of the theistic account had not been available.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>II.</B> Let's take a look at another example of an informative
identification, given by Murphy: water is H2O. <A HREF="#water">[3</A><A HREF="#water">9</A><A HREF="#water">]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Through the vast majority of human history, that account was not
available.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Yet, that did not place any burden on someone rejecting previous
theories of water to provide an account of her own. In fact, a person
rejecting previous theories of water could have properly said that
she did not know what heat was, and that a lot more research was
needed in order to then develop a philosophical account.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>II</B><B>I.</B> Let's consider an example Craig himself gives in
the context of his debate with Sam Harris <A HREF="#r5">[r5]</A>:
light and darkness. As Craig points out in that debate, humans knew
how to use the word 'light' (or synonyms, one might add) before they
knew the nature of light, and they could also tell the difference
between light and darkness long before they knew the physics of
light. But that's not what matters in the context of this section.
Rather, in this context we may add that for most of the history of
humanity, the ontological foundation of light, in terms of
informative identification, was not known. It was only discovered
after a lot of scientific progress.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Points similar to I., II, and III can be made for a number other
cases of informative identification accounts, plausibly for most of
them. But if, in all those cases, there was no burden, why should
there be such a burden on a non-theist in the case of objective moral
values and duties, which is plausibly far more complicated than the
cases of water or heat?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
After all, non-theism is not a philosophical stance that claims to
have an account of objective moral values and duties in the sense of
informative identification, or to be capable of explaining it in
those terms, or for that matter in any other sense. Granted, <I>some
</I>not-theists might make one of such claims, perhaps by adhering to
a general philosophical stance that makes one of those claims. But
that does not create a general burden on other non-theists, but only
on those making such claims.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, given the previous points, the answers to <A HREF="#33'">3.a and
3.a' </A>are plausibly both negative, at least for non-theists in
general – even philosophers -, or even non-theists familiar
with Craig's argument, or even non-theists familiar with other
theistic metaethical arguments. Some non-theists might have a burden
because of other claims they make, and which go beyond their
rejection or theism, but that's another matter.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Moreover, in all of those cases (i.e., water, heat, color, light,
etc.), it took a very long time a lot of scientific progress was
required before a correct or approximately correct philosophical
foundational account was developed.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Given all of that, if someone claims that unless a plausible
foundational account compatible with non-theism is given, we should
based on that and the second premise of Craig's argument reckon that
God exists, they ought to argue in support of that claim.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="self"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>14</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Evolution
and se</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>lf-sacrifice</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>,
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>and
generally human behavior. </B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
theist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
might object to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
non-theistic</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">evolutionary
accounts on the ground of acts of heroism, sometimes resulting in the
death of the person making the sacri</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">f</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ice.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">More
generally, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">a
theist </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">might
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">claim
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">that
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">an</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">
evolutionary process </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">without
God would not lead to entities with the psychological make up of
humans. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">This
kind of objection is not a metaethical challenge, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">though,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">but
it’s a challenge to a</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">ny</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">scientific</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">understanding</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">
of human evolution that does not involve God </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">or
any other creator, but instead involves the processes posited by
present-day science</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
with perhaps some minor adjustments. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">An
example of this kind of objection is Craig’s challenge to a
biological account of our sense of beauty. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">I
addressed that particular example </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#beauty2"><U>earlier</U></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">but
a general account of the evolution of human traits is a very
complicated scientific question, and surely beyond the scope of this
article. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">So,
I will just point out that </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
a theist claimed that the evolutionary process </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">without
God would </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">result
in the kind of being that we humans are, the burden is on </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">him</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to make </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">his</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
case.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
As it stands, the evidence for evolution by the means posited by
present-day science is very solid, so one should expect only minor
adjustments in the future, rather than a massive change like the
introduction of a designer guiding evolution.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
That said, a non-theist may also argue that if God existed, we would
not observe what we observe today. While it would be beyond the scope
of this article to make any such arguments, we may mention –
purely for example – that she may make an argument from
suffering and/or from moral evil, or an argument from the existence
of moral agents with flawed senses of right and wrong, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="commands"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>15. Moral obligations, legal obligations and
commands.</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In his debate with Sam Harris<A HREF="#r5">[r5]</A>, Craig claims<I>
</I><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that moral obligations and
prohibitions result from commands issued by a competent authority. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Apparently as a parallel</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
he points out that if a police officers tells one to pull over, one
is </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>legally </I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">obligated
to do so, whereas if a random stranger tells one to pull over, one is
not </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>legally</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
obligated to do so. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then, Craig </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">goes
on to claim</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> that</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
on atheism, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">since there is
no authority to give </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>moral
</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">commands or impose
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>moral </I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">prohibitions,
then there are no moral obligations. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, his assertions about
moral obligations </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">are</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">not backed by any
arguments he makes</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">, nor by
his example of the police officer. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In particular, t</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">he
case of the police officer is obviously one of </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>legal</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
obligation</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">, not a moral
obligation. </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted, in
many cases – but not all -, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
person </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">did not have a
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>moral</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
obligation to pull over before the police officer gave the order, but
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">she</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
does have such an obligation after that. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, the fact that in some
cases moral obligations result from commands does not </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">even
suggest </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that all moral
obligations are like that. </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Purely
for example</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">, let's
consider the following scenario: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Alice </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">works
as a lifeguard, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">but</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is on vacation abroad. She's </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">taking
a walk</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> by a lake</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
enjoying the view, when she sees that a child</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is on a small raft alone,
and then falls to the lake, and is </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">seriously</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">struggling, clearly in
immediate danger of drowning. </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
child</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> is about 10 meters
from the shore, and 20 meters from Alice's position. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">T</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">he
waters are perfectly calm</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Alice</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">correctly reckons she can
jump into the lake</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">swim
towards him</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">, etc., and </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">she
has a reasonably good shot at getting there in time and sav</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">ing</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
his life</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">, with no
non-negligible risks</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> to
herself</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">. She sees no other
people around. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In that situation, Alice did not
have any moral obligation to jump into the lake until she saw</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
what happened</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">, but then
she did. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted, we may say that Alice
already had the general moral obligation to jump into a lake </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">situation
like that involving </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
child</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> were to happen. But
the same applies to the case of the police officer</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– i.e., one usually has a moral obligation to obey commands by
police officers in such contexts. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, arguably Alice would have
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">had no</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
moral obligation </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">to jump
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">if</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– say – </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">she
hadn't witnessed what happened to Bob, without any fault on her part.
But also similarly, if </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
person </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">does not see the
police officer's indication, without any fault on </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">her
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">part, then </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">she
has </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">no moral obligation to
pull over, either. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In case Alice or the other person
are at fault, the matter is more debatable, but in any case, there </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
no </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">difference that is
relevant to the matter at hand, namely regarding how moral
obligations arise. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">S</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">o,
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">it seems that </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">to
the extent to which a moral obligation to pull over resulted from the
police officer's command</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
a moral obligation also resulted from </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
child's</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> falling into the
water. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There are of course, plenty of
other examples</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> of moral
obligations that one may consider, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">but
based on our experience</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
as well as hypothetical scenarios, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">there
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">appears to be n</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">o
indication </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">whatsoever </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of
any </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">general </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">connection
between moral obligation and commands</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
let alone evidence that commands are a requirement for moral
obligation. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig does not </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">seem
to </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">give any evidence in
support of the idea that moral obligations require a commander. If
he's trying to appeal to some intuitions, I will say it's </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>extremely
counterintuitive</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> that
moral obligations would require an authority. For example, we may set
up the following scenario: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">God does not exist, and Bob is
the only human left alive. There is a cat on the mat. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then, there is no commander,
authority or command, but intuitively, it's clear that Bob would be
acting immorally if he were to pour gasoline over the cat and set her
on fire just for fun</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">. But
that e</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">ntails that</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in the scenario, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Bob has a
moral obligation not to behave in that manner. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover, instead of a cat, we
may consider, say, a child, Mary – who also isn't a moral
commander, and in any case is asleep and has issued no commands -,
setting up the scenario so that Bob and </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Mary
are </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the only humans left
alive, and God does not exist. In that case, it's also</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
clear</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> that Bob has a moral
obligation not to </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">set Mary
on fire for fun. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, Craig's claim goes against
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">strong </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
intuitions </FONT><A HREF="#intui"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></A><A HREF="#intui"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3</FONT></A><A HREF="#intui"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3</FONT></A><A HREF="#intui"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">there seems to be no
good reason to believe it's true. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
another </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">defense
of his metaethical argument</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#r9">[r9]</A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
also in his debate with Richard Taylor</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#r22">[</A><A HREF="#r28">r</A><A HREF="#r28"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#r28">8</A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">quotes</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Taylor</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#r29">r2</A><A HREF="#r23">9</A>]<A HREF="#r24">,</A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
apparently </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
a means of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">support</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ing</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
his contention about moral obligations</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and commands</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#r29"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#r23">9</A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
some of those quotes, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Taylor
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">says
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">questions
about right and wrong were never answered outside religion, and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">also
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
the concept of moral obligation is unintelligible without God. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#r29"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#r23">9</A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Taylor's
claims tha</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t
questions about moral </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">right
and wrong </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">have
never been answered outside religion" is false unless one
construes the word 'religion' in a way so broad that it encompasses
philosophies like – purely for example – Confucianism</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">M</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">oreover,
regardless of how one construes the word 'religion', </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s
I pointed out </SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#traditional">earlier</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">historically,
there are</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">/were
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">plenty
of cultures that have no concept of God, and even if they have</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">/had</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
beliefs in some superhuman entities, they do</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">/did</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
not hold that moral obligations come from their commands</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Yet, those people
people did not seem to have any trouble understanding the concept of
moral obligation, and they surely did not understand themselves to be
making claims about the commands of any entity, let alone of God.
Also, as before, we seem to have no difficulty understanding the
claim that in the scenarios I constructed earlier in this section,
Bob has moral obligations. Nor do we seem to have any particular
difficulty understanding</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
the use of moral terms in</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
say, Richard Swinburne's claim that "God has a moral obligation
to make himself known".</SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r30">[r</A><A HREF="#r30">30</A><A HREF="#r25">]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">To be clear</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
Craig is not making a semantic argumen</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">t</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
the point is that regardless of what Craig is trying to </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">achieve</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
by quoting Taylor, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
claims in question </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
at best unfounded, and given the previous considerations, </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">we
can tell also </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">false.
</SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="prudential"></A><A NAME="motive"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>16. Prudential reasons vs. moral reasons?</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
While not strictly part of the metaethical argument, in the context
of his defense of that argument, and on the issue of prudential
reasons, Craig challenges atheists as follows: <A HREF="#r2">[r2]</A></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<B>Craig:</B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
“Prudence and morality are often at odds, and the question for
the atheist would be: why act morally rather than out of
self-interest? Why not just act out of prudence?”</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
There are a number of replies available to the atheist, but for
instance:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1.</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Plausibly,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">human
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">being
is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
kind of being one of whose goals is to be a good </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
a better person </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">–
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
a result of evolution, perhaps </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
-, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">so
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
would always be favorable to some of a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">human's
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">interests
not to behave immorally, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least under a broad conception of interest</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and with the potential exception of a very small percentage of
pathological cases. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
C</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">raig
is using 'self-interest' in a way that excludes a person's interest
in doing what's right, simply because it's the right thing to do</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and/or </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
order to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
a good person</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">That
usage is common –</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">
in fact, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">probably
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">the
most common -</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
so </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">that’s
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">not
a problem, but we </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">ought</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">
to keep in mind what's meant by 'self-interest</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">’;
despite the wording, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">it's
not the only interest people </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">normally
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">have.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>2.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">
It’s not clear that morality and prudence would be </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>often</I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">
at odds. Even if we exclude by stipulation all moral considerations
from ‘</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">prudence</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">’,
humans tend to be less happy if they feel guilty, so that’s a
non-moral reason not to behave immorally, since </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">immoral</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">
behavior tends to lead to guilt.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">That
said</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
that would still treat </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">not
behaving immorally </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">as
a means to an end, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">which
is </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">worse
than trying to be good because it’s good, doing the right thing
because it’s right, etc. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>3</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">
Let’s say that there is a case in which, say, a psychopathic
dictator is pondering whether to behave immorally to get what he
wants</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">.
Someone might</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">
ask: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">Why
shouldn’t he act immorally?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">I</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">n
the moral sense of ‘should’, tautologically he shouldn’t
act immorally.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">But
some of his interests would surely be served by acting
immorally.<BR>Would it be</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">irrational</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">on
his part to behave immorally?</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">It's
a matter of human psychology, it seems to me.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Perhaps</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">human</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">minds
are such that their deepest values, even if obscured due to errors
and irrationality, are always in line with morality, and so it's
irrational even for that dictator, all things considered, to behave
immorally.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">But
maybe that is not</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">always</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">so.
Maybe not</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">all</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">humans
are like that, and the dictator is one of very few abnormal humans
who sometimes might act immorally without acting irrationally. While
I need not take a stance here, I would say that after reflecting on
some hypothetical scenarios, it seems plausible that it’s
possibly rational for some humans to behave immorally. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">For
example, let’s consider the following scenario: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
a distant, dystopian future, Jack, a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">psychopathic</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">human
– and so, a person -, has become the ruler of the planet. He
uses robots to rule over everyone else, and no one else has access to
advanced technology. No other human has the power to be any threat to
him, and he enjoys – among other things – hunting humans
for fun, and there are no threats from extraterrestrials or any other
non-human beings.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.29in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
that scenario, Jack obviously has a moral obligation not to hunt
humans for fun, he behaves immorally when he hunts humans for fun,
and equivalently he ought to not hunt humans for fun in the moral
sense of ‘ought’. However, intuitively it seems to me
that Jack does not behave irrationally if he hunts humans for fun, or
equivalently it is not the case that Jack ought to not hunt humans
for fun, in the sense of ‘ought’ of practical
rationality. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.29in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Moreover,
in some other scenarios in which, say, a psychopathic dictator
properly reckons that he would be at much greater risk of being
ousted, tried and probably eventually executed if he stops oppressing
people, murdering peaceful dissidents, etc., then it seems plausible
that he rationally ought to continue engaging in su<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">ch
behaviors, even though clearly he morally ought not to continue
engaging in such behaviors</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">whether he behaved
irrationally on his way to becoming such a dictator is another
matter. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">At
any rate, the matter of prudence and morality does not provide any
good reason to think that the first premise of Craig’s
metaethical argument is true, either, or generally to believe that
God exists.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="account"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">17</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
Acco</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">untability</SPAN></SPAN></B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig raises the possibility that
someone can get away with evil, and uses that as what he calls a
“powerful practical argument”<A HREF="#r9"><FONT SIZE=3>[</FONT></A><A HREF="#r10"><FONT SIZE=3>r</FONT></A><A HREF="#r10"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">10</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
for theism. This is not part of the metaethical argument, since Craig
does not claim that it supports the premises, as far as I know. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
he makes this a</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">rgument</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
context of </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
defen</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">se</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
claim that morality needs theistic metaethical foundations, so I will
address it. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
Craig maintains that </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
there is no God, there is no moral accountability, and </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
given death with no afterlife, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
really</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
does not matter how we live. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#r9">[</A><A HREF="#r10">r</A><A HREF="#r10"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">10</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, even
without any kind of afterlife, our choices affect our future, and the
future of others; they can cause happiness, suffering, etc., to us
and/or to other people, and of course that kind of thing normally
matters <I>to us and to </I><I>many </I><I>others. </I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Our
choices might not matter to some aliens </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">from
another planet, or to some creator</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
but that </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">does
not change the fact that they matter to many people. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As for
accountability, there is in many cases moral accountability even if
God does not exist, like the case of bank robbers going to prison.
So, t<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">here
does not need </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">for
an a</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">fterlife
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
order </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">for
justice to be done in many cases. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">There
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">isn't
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>always
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">accountability,
but there is in many cases. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Granted,
sometimes there is not, and that’s that. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
the fact that there is not always accountability without God does not
provide evidence of the existence of God. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
i</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t’s
true that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
does not attempt to use the practical argument </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">alone</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Instead, he proposes to use practical arguments to “back up or
motivate” the acceptance of what he believes are sound
theoretical arguments. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">still
be</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">epistemically
improper, since </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
person </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
still be assigning greater probability to theism due to
considerations that are not evidence for theism. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
aside, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">maintains</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that lack of belief in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
weaken</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
moral motivation. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Ev</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">en
if that were true, it would provide no evidence for the existence of
God, and so i</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t
would </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">still
be epistemically improper to assign </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">higher
probability to the hypothesis that God exists than one would
otherwise assign on the basis of a concern that one’s moral
motivation would be weakened if one assigned </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">lower
probability </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
that hypothesis. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
the argument fails. But there is a</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">nother
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">problem</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
namely the fact that d</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">espite
Craig’s </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">explicit
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">recognition
that there is no reason to think that atheists can lead “what
we normally characterize as good and decent lives”, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig’s
motivational argument implicitly </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">holds
that, at least </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">generally</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
not believing in God will </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">tend
to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">make
a person’s moral character morally </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">worse</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
Craig has not </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">any
good grounds to believe that. <BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
claim of a weakening of a moral motivation has not been established
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
all. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
additionally, and for example, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">those
who adopt theistic beliefs usually do not just adopt some sort of
un</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">specified
theism, but some version of Christianity or Islam, with all the
baggage of false beliefs – including false </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">beliefs
-, attached to them. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
f</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">alse
moral beliefs –</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
regardless of their source, religious or not – </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">tend
to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">lead</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
people to behave immorally believing that they're doing the right
thing. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
an example that illustrates the case of false moral beliefs that
result from </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">religion
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
that lead to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">behaviors
that are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">usually</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#usually"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#usually"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#usually">0</A><A HREF="#usually"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
immoral</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">like,
say, publicly accusing people who are not doing anything wrong of
behaving immorally </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
one may point to Craig’s </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">false
moral claims </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">against
gay relations </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#r3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[r3]</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">or the claim usually made
by </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">many </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Christians
that it’s immoral not to believe that God exists and/or to
believe that he does not exist</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
claim that would be false even if God existed. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#moralcase"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#moralcase"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#moralcase"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A HREF="#moralcase"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Granted, not <I>all</I>
Christians accept those particular false moral beliefs – i.e.,
in the cases of gay relations and unbelief -, but the point is that
<I>usually</I>, theism leads to religions with many false moral
beliefs, and many of the people who believe in them promote those
beliefs, if not publicly by means of telling their children that
those beliefs are true, etc. Given their religious source, changing
those moral beliefs through reason may be even more difficult than it
would otherwise be. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Granted, it might be
argued that perhaps not-theists are on average more inclined to adopt
<I>other</I> false ideologies, and that they too would have false
moral beliefs as a result, etc., so the issues would then be
questions like which ideologies are on average worse, etc. <SPAN LANG="en-US">But
the point is that Craig has not provided any good reasons to suspect
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">that </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">not
believing that God exists, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">on average,
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">leads a person to be morally worse </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">than
she would otherwise be. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="conclusion"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>18. Conclusions. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Craig’s argumentation fails to provide any good reasons to
think that the <A HREF="#formal">first premise </A><A HREF="#formal">of
his main metaethical argument</A> is true. Moreover, some of the
previous considerations lead us to the conclusion that <A HREF="#craignoexplain">it's
false</A>, as long as we take it to mean the same as the conditional
<I>if God didn't exist, objective moral values and duties would not
exist</I><I>,</I> which is what Craig meant and so what is relevant
in this context. <A HREF="#material">[</A><A HREF="#material">4</A><A HREF="#material">2</A>]<A HREF="#r9">[r</A><A HREF="#r9">9]</A>
- though that result is not needed to properly reject Craig's
metaethical argument.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Other
metaethical or ethical arguments for the existence of God that Craig
makes in the same context of one of the defenses of his main
metaethical argument</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r9">[</A><A HREF="#r10">r</A><A HREF="#r10"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">10</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">],
also fail to establish the intended conclusion, or </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">even
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">provide
any support for it. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Notes:</B></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN> </P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="bomb"></A>
[0]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">A
poster at <A HREF="http://www.freeratio.org/">www.freeratio.org</A>
who posts under the nickname ‘Bomb#20’ is one of the
sources of some of the key ideas I use in the arguments above, but I
do not claim that he would agree with everything I say above, since
the article is a combination of ideas from different sources plus my
own additions.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Another
source are some of Eliezer Yudkowsky’s posts at
www.lesswrong.com, though I do not claim that he would agree with the
views I express in this article, either.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objectivenote1"></A>
[1]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Elsewhere</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">also
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">talks
about</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">object</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ive
truth</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#r6"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r6">6]</A><A HREF="#r7">[r</A><A HREF="#r7"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">7</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#r7">]</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objectively
true claims</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> </SPAN><A HREF="#r8"><SPAN LANG="en-US">[r</SPAN></A><A HREF="#r8">8</A><SPAN LANG="en-US">]</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">etc.</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">In
those case</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">s</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">, he
does not try to define or explain </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">‘objective’,
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">so</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> it seems</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">probable</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> that
he’</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">s using the work ‘objective’
in an ordinary sense of the term. Some of the claims he makes seem to
confirm that, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">though</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
t</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">here is no need to go any further into
that here. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="judgement"></A>
<SPAN LANG="en-US">[2] I'm not making</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"> a
distinction between statements and judgments.</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
Terminology varies, but it seems that the examples I give would
qualify as statements and judgments in Craig's terminology. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="disagreement1"></A>
[3]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Incidentally</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
Craig </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">also
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">claims
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
objectivity is a requirement for disagreement</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">error</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#r1">[r1]</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and surely </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
can be disagreement</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
about</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
whether, say, the cat in question is in pain</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
some people might erroneously believe that the cat is not in pain,
etc. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
same goes for fear. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
Still, this particular claim is neither required nor decisive when it
comes to understanding what Craig means by 'objective', and further,
it seems the claim is not entirely correct.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
example, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
the case of errors, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let's
consider the following scenario: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Alice
tastes a cake, finds it yummy, and comes to believe that the cake is
yummy. But as it turns out, the part that she tasted was a small
portion with a composition different from that of the rest of the
cake. Later, when she's eating another portion, she says to herself
'this isn't yummy at all: it tastes funny', and realizes that she
was </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">mistaken</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in her belief that the cake was yummy. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
Mary says that she tasted several portions and found them yummy, so
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Alice
gives Mary the rest of the portion she found non-yummy, and Mary
finds it yummy</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
too. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
In that scenario, plausibly whether the cake – or one of its
portions – is yummy is a matter of taste, not a matter of fact.
Yet, Alice was in error.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
That said, while Craig's claim on this point seems to be exaggerated,
the claims, arguments, attitude, etc., and generally behavior of the
parties involved in actual moral disagreements usually show that they
do understand themselves to be talking about a matter of fact, not
about a matter of opinion, in the cases in which they're being
sincere – which is also often the case.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
That does not mean that they believe that there is <I>always </I>a
fact of the matter, even in every conceivable hypothetical scenario,
about whether a person [morally] ought to behave in such-and-such
way, etc. Many people believe so – perhaps even most people –
but that is not required to make sense of the kind of behavior
displayed in specific cases of disagreement by people who are being
sincere. For example, a belief that in all or at least <I>nearly</I>
all cases that we might <I>actually</I> encounter there is a fact of
the matter as to whether a person should do such-and-such thing would
do, though there is no need to argue that point here.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
On the other hand, I see no evidence that the sincere behaviors of
people in usual cases of moral disagreement indicate that they
implicitly believe in the mind-independence of moral duties and/or
values, at least if 'mind independence' is understood in such a way
that it would entail anything <I>beyond </I>what's entailed by there
being a fact of the matter on the issue they're disputing.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="pw"></A>
[4]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
The scenario may be understood as a possible world, if one accepts
talk of possible worlds.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Else, one may consider the matter in terms one prefers, like
scenarios, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
aside, and just </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
case the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">definition</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is not clear</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I’d
like to clarify that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#oc"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#oc"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">c</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#op"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">onditio</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#op"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
OP2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#op">,</A><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">an
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">agent</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actual</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
with respect to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
world or scenario under consideration –</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
i.e., that’s how the condition</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of actuality</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
should be understood. The same goes for similar conditions in the
case of morality, beauty, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">color,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="badwrong"></A>
[5]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="arguecase"></A>
I’m talking about arguments in the sense of ‘arguing a
case’ here, not formal arguments.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
[6]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="impossible"></A>
Craig also believes that a scenario in which God does not exist is
metaphysically impossible. However, since arguing from metaphysically
impossible hypothetical scenarios – or scenarios that one
suspects and/or believes are metaphysically impossible – is not
in general improper, that does not seem to provide a good ground for
challenging Craig’s metaethical argument.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="would"></A><A NAME="wouldnot"></A>
[7]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
might be argued that, in this context, the proper way to argue is
that in such a scenario, they </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
not </SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">exist,
rather than </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">do
not</SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
exist. I’m going by Craig’s </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">most
common f</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ormulation
of the second premise, and I actually don’t think that this
particular issue is a problem for his argument. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
I see it, whether use ‘would’ or ‘do’ in that
context is a matter of writing style – as long as one’s
clear about what one is talking about; </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
maintain that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
is often obscure, but I don’t think that</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that </SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">particular
issue is one of the factors that make his metaethical argument
obscure. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
So, I will not raise any objections to the use of ‘do not’,
etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In any case, Craig also used the subjunctive formulation in his
debate with Stephen Law.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
[8]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="sometimesobjective"></A>
An alternative would be to argue that, <I>sometimes</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
there is no objective fact of the matter as to whether some behavior
is immoral, and sometimes there is. Would that mean that there are
objective moral </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">duties</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
or that there aren’t?</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I will not address such variants, to
simplify, but a </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">deepe</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">more </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">comprehensive
analysis of certain metaethical issues would require just that. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="subjective"></A>
[9]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
I’m using the term ‘subjectivism’ in the sense of
‘subjective’ that Craig seems to be using, namely that
it’s a matter of taste, etc.; depending on terminology, it
seems to me such views might be classified as speaker-relativism as
well.</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="sufficient"></A>
[10]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">f
slight variations would only result in non-objectivity in very
specific cases, ‘almost always objective’ </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">may</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
b</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">e properly called
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘objective’, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
in any case, lack of objectivity is extremely rare cases may not </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">be
so problematic, so arguably the theist would have to show that there
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
significant variations </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">without
God</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, where ‘significant’
is sometimes difficult to evaluate, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">but
it may plausibly be evaluated intuitively </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
most cases. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
For instance, if there is some very slight variation in the color
perception of people with normal color vision and as a result, on
some very rare occasions, there is no objective fact of the matter as
to, say, whether an object is pure green or bluish green, that would
not entail that objective color does not exist, if we allow for some
tolerance – just as we normally would say that an object is
blue even if 1/1000000 of its surface is not blue, we may say that
color is objective even if there is no objective fact of the matter
in 1/1000000 of cases we encounter.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Still, a full analysis of this
matter would exceed the scope of this articl</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">e,
so I will </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">leave that aside</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="ideal"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">By ‘ideal conditions’ I
mean conditions in which the person has all the information </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">about
non-moral matters </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">needed </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">use
her faculties and make a </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral
assessment of a </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">situation, and in which </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">she
is being rational </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and her
faculties are not failing. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="badrwrong2"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I’m not taking a stance </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">here
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on whether there is </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
sense of right and wrong </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of good and bad/</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">evil</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or a sense of right and wrong </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">plus
</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a sense of good and
bad/</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">evil</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or some other combination of
faculties. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In fact, I may </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">sometimes
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">talk</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
about </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
sense of right and wrong, etc., to simplify the arguments, but
essentially the same arguments, objections, etc., are compatible with
the view that our faculty to tell right from wrong, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is actually the combined
result of two or more mental </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">systems</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
etc.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">, which may even be the
result of more general cognitive capabilities. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Those are </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">complicated
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">issues of moral psychology
on which I’m taking no stance here. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="cultures"></A>
[13]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Some of those religions that do not have any belief in the existence
of God involve many false moral beliefs – of course, believers
usually disagree -. For that matter, so does Christianity – of
course, Christians usually disagree -, and other religions that do
hold that God exists.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But in any case, the question here is not whether people in those
cultures had or have many false first-order moral beliefs resulting
from their religions, but whether in general humans traditionally had
metaethical beliefs according to which moral duties were in one way
or another based on the commands of God, goodness based on the nature
of God, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
That is certainly not the case. In fact, even in the United States,
or in Europe, Divine Command Theory is traditionally rejected by many
Christians, so it's quite debatable whether Craig's claim about how
moral obligations have been traditionally understood is true even
there. But even granting it's true in the United States and/or
Europe, it's certainly not true about human beings or human cultures
in general.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="post"></A>
<SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
By ‘post-human’, I mean any descendants of humans that
have significantly changed, whether via the usual mechanisms by which
our ancestors evolved into us, or by means of genetic engineering
and/or integration of machines into their bodies. I'm making no claim
here that there will be such beings, or that there will not, or about
whether the actions leading to them will be immoral, if they were to
happen.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
[15]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="psycho"></A>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="research"></A>
[16]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might ask: How would scientists measure that a person </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
violating other people’s rights, or that a person is morally
good, etc.? </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But for that matter, someone might ask how scientists would measure
that a person is ill, or that an object is, say, green. Granted, in
the case of green objects, someone might try to measure wavelengths,
etc., and in the case of illnesses, there are lists of illnesses,
symptoms, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
However, neither detecting illness nor detecting green – or
greenness, if one prefers – was beyond the capabilities of
scientists before they had such lists, and even the lists themselves
were developed by means including using human color vision and a
human intuitive understanding of illnesses in the first place.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
The same goes for many other cases.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="species1color"></A>
[17]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">When
I speak of ‘species#1-color’, ‘species#1-color
language’, etc., I use that terminology to distinguish the
visual system and the language associated with it from their human
counterparts, but I do not mean to suggest that that’s the only
species in the universe that has that visual system, or words
associated with those specific wavelengths.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">In
fact, if the universe if large enough even if finite, there may well
be perhaps many species with very similar or even almost identical
visual systems, including many with a visual system like the human
one, and similar language as well.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Similarly,
my use of ‘species#2-beauty’ and ‘species#3-morality’
is meant to distinguish those species from humans in the matters
relevant to the arguments under consideration. I do not mean to imply
that their faculties, or their language, would be unique in the
universe. The same goes, of course, for humans and morality. Other
intelligent social species might have morality as well, even if not
all of them did – a matter on which I’m not taking a
stance here.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="spectrum"></A>
[18]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">Of course, some other entities with a visual range
from 440nm to 750nm might see things very differently. </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">The
example is </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">just one possibility. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="moralgenetics"></A>
[19]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
That raises moral issues depending on how it’s done, but that’s
not the matter at hand.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objectivecolor"></A>
[20]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
Actually, there seems to be some slight divergence in the way people
with normal color vision see some colors, which suggests that, in
rare cases, there is no objective fact of the matter on color issues
– e.g., there might not be an objective fact of the matter as
to whether some object is pure green or bluish green, in some rare
cases.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
However, nearly always there is an objective fact of the matter as to
what color an object is – i.e., in nearly all cases we
encounter, that is so.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
So, it seems to me that, speaking colloquially, it would be true that
color is objective, since there seems to be some tolerance (e.g., we
properly say that a car’s door is green, or made of metal, even
if it’s not 100% sop, but 99.9999% so).
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
Still, this point is <I>not </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">crucial
to the argumentation. We may reformulate the hypothesis so that if
color statements are </SPAN><I>nearly always </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">objective
in the relevant sense and some statements like ‘X is green’,
etc., are true, objective color </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">exists.
</SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
Alternatively, and to simplify, we may assume that it’s not the
case that there is a very small degree of divergence between the
color vision of people with normal color vision, and as a consequence
in the way people use color terms. While that probably wouldn’t
be true, the point would remain that the objectivity of color would
not be affected by the presence of such aliens, etc.; in fact, for
that matter, we may consider different species of aliens with
different visual systems in our scenarios, stipulating that there is
no divergence at all within each of the alien species in terms of
color-like perception, and the points would be the same, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="beauty1"></A>
[21]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It’s compatible with the
scenario – so, one might split it into sub-scenarios if one
needs more examples, but I think that’s not required here –
that in addition to the difference in what they find appealing, etc.,
their visual representation of their environment, if they have one,
is considerably different from ours, </SPAN>and it’s also
compatible that it’s not so different. <SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
there is no need for such details for the purpose of the point I’m
trying to make. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="species2"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In this context, when I say something “like” species#2,
etc., I mean something similar in a sense that would be relevant in
the context of these argument. For instance, that they evolved in
dark caves is not relevant, as long as there are great differences
between what they find appealing which is associated with their
judgments of species#2-beauty, and what humans find appealing and is
associated with judgments of beauty.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="determined1"></A><A NAME="determined2"></A>
[23]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Assuming non-determinism. Of course, on determinism, the result would
have been the same no matter how many times one rewinds it, as long
as the initial conditions are the same, though it would change in
general with slightly different initial conditions.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
It's not clear whether Craig is assuming non-determinism, or the
‘might’ is epistemic and there is no such assumption. But
this is not crucial, so we may leave that aside. In fact, we may even
assume non-determinism for the sake of the argument –
non-determinism is Craig's position, regardless of whether he's
implicitly assuming it in this particular context.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="andromeda"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">T</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">he Andromeda galaxy is
perhaps too far away even for advanced aliens –</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">I’m not entirely sure, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">though</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">-</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">,
so </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">personally I would prefer to </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">set
up the </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">aliens </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">to
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">evolve on another planet in the </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">Milky
Way, </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">but clearly galaxy of origin is
irrelevant to the metaethical argument. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also, rape is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">extremely</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
improbable in that scenario (Why would they want to rape humans in
the first place?), and eating humans is also </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">quite</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
improbable (why not a more efficient way of getting food, even if
humans happened to be edible to them?), but let’s say </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
the sake of the argument </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">–
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
pick one of Craig’s examples – that they want to eat
humans, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and let’s
further say that they want to eat humans </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">because
they like the way humans taste – or for </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">any</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
other </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">reason </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">suitable
for the purposes of the argument – </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
so they invade the Earth and do so. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="nostance"></A>
[25]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I make no claim as to whether there
are aliens </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">similar to that</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">even</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
whether t</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hey are
nomologically possible. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I’m
just assuming for the sake of the argument that such aliens evolved.</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="intuitions"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">6</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Granted, someone might reply that they have different intuitions. But
if that is the case, then what we a clash of intuitions, but that
does not give me good reasons to accept their claim. Other people
will of course make their own assessments.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In any case, if a theist claims that this would be problematic for
non-theism, he would have the burden of showing why or how.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="religions"></A>
[27]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN LANG="en-US">On that note, we may properly and truthfully say,
in hypothetical scenarios involving aliens written as moral agents –</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
not as species#3-moral agents -</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">, that some
of them behaved immorally in those scenarios, etc..</SPAN></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Also, we may properly make moral assessments in the case of the
beings posited by different religions, as long as the religions in
question state or entail that such beings are moral agents –
e.g., a way of entailing it would be to claim that an entity does
morally praiseworthy actions, or is morally good, etc.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[2</FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>8</FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="circular"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There are a number
of issues that might be raised at this point, but addressing them
would be beyond the scope of this essay.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="meter1"></A>
[29]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>T</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>here
is a </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>difference
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>here</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>,
namely the fact t</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>he
term ‘meter’, wa</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>s
once </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>defined
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>in
terms of the </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>meter
bar</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>,
whereas </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>moral
terms</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>
are not </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>defined
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>in
terms of </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>the
term '</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Go</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>d',
let alone in terms of an actual person. Furthermore, even if the
judgment 'God is morally good' is, on Craig's understanding of the
term 'God', analytical, also the term 'God' is not </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>defined</I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>
in terms of any actual person</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>.
But I'll leave that aside</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>,
at least for now. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="30"></A>
[30]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notational"></A>
More precisely, the informative identification would be the central
part of an account of objective moral values/duties, and the
ontological foundation would be the thing that moral values/duties
would be identified with, or [some of] whose states/aspects/etc.
moral values/duties would be identified with. But I don't think this
slight notational abuse is a problem, so I will talk about
'ontological foundation in the sense of informative identification'
and perhaps similar expressions, keeping this in mind.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="poe"></A>
[31]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
My position is that a serial killer would not exist in a scenario in
which God existed, and neither would a being who intends to be a
serial killer, etc. But I'm leaving aside that for the sake of the
argument, since I'm raising a challenge to Craig's theistic
metaethical account that does not require an argument from evil
against theism.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="overlap"></A>
[32]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Some of the mental states or events on the list overlap, given the
general "generally subjectively experiences", or "generally
subjectively experienced", but I prefer to list some specific
ones, in order to be more specific.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="intui"></A>
[33]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Granted, someone might say that their grasp of the concepts and/or
intuitions say otherwise. But that kind of claim might always be
raised. I invite readers to make their own assessments.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
[34]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="purewater"></A>
While the liquid in question is not <I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">pure
</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">water, the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">claim
that it's water is true</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
using the words in </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">a</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
usual, colloquial sense </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">(</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">which
includes some tolerance), and while picking a more precise expression
would be doable if needed, it would </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">seem
to </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">be needlessly long in
this context. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[35]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="noteaccount"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone might argue
that the 'greatest conceivable being' definition requires having a
combination of great-making properties that achieves a maximal degree
of greatness in every possible world, but perhaps does not require
having all great-making properties to a maximal degree in case that
that is not possible for some reason. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In that case, one
may suitably modify the definition given that maximal moral goodness
is required anyway, and the circularity objection remains. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="conditions"></A>
[36]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For the sake of brevity, I will just talk about whether a foundation
meets Craig's <A HREF="#OFOMV">conditions</A>, meaning the relevantly
corresponding conditions.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
For instance, in the case of heat, the condition corresponding to
condition 5 – in case Craig requires condition <A HREF="#OFOMV">OMOMV5</A>
for moral goodness – would be a paradigmatic object or
paradigmatic case of molecular motion which determines heat in a way
similar to which, according to Craig, there is a paradigm that
determines goodness.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="proper"></A>
[37]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#C1">C1</A> might be used to argue against any theistic
accounts of proper function, but I'm leaving all of the arguments in
subsection <A HREF="#craignoexplain">13.2</A> aside in other
subsections, for the sake of the argument, because I aim to give
independent and sufficient reasons for rejecting Craig's argument.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="heat"></A>
[38]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
Molecules are in turn identifiable with some interactions between
atoms and/or configurations of atoms, which in turn are identifiable
with some interactions between subatomic particles and/or
configurations of subatomic particles, and for all we know, the
subatomic particles we know of might not be the bottom. In fact,
there might not even be a bottom – what if it's turtles all the
way down?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
But let's leave all of that aside, to simplify, and since I don't
need to focus on that issue.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="water"></A>
[39]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
In the case of H2O, that's a description of a molecule at the level
of atoms, but an identification with interactions of and/or
configurations of subatomic particles is available. Moreover, for all
we know, the subatomic particles we know of might not be the bottom.
In fact, there might not even be a bottom – what if it's
turtles all the way down? But let's leave all of that aside, to
simplify, and since I don't need to focus on that issue.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="usually"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>40</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>]</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I say “usually”
because one can easily construct scenarios in which that’s not
immoral; for example, there are scenarios in which someone claims
that gay sex is always immoral because someone else is making a
serious and sufficiently significant threat if she does not make that
claim, and she's not doing anything immoral by making that claim –
she's just under a serious threat. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But that's not
Craig's situation, who in addition has had <I>decades </I>to assess
his moral beliefs, yet <I>continues</I> to promote the false moral
beliefs that non-belief in God is always immoral, that gay sex is
always immoral, etc. - 'always' at least for mentally competent human
adults, that is. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="moralcase"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[41] </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Of course,
Christians usually disagree with my moral assessment on that and many
other matters involving Christian-based moral beliefs. On a related
note, a link to that a moral case against Christianity can be found
<A HREF="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1al-RuUEVxHk3ldQQC8o0U5ES3T7MfnmxdaKjVAl0Zzc/pub">here</A>.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[42] </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="material"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If we take the first
premise as a material conditional, in order to show it's false we
would have to show that God does not exist, which is beyond the scope
of this essay. But Craig did not intend it as a material conditional.
Rather, Craig intended the first premise to mean "If God did not
exist, then objective moral values and duties would not exist".
In fact, that is the formulation he chose in his debate with Stephen
Law.<A HREF="#r9">[r</A><A HREF="#r9">9</A><A HREF="#r9">]</A>
Moreover, Craig says that he <I>thinks </I>that the first premise is
a true counterpossible, and that it means that if God did not exist,
then objective moral values and duties would not exist. <A HREF="#r9b">[r9b]</A>
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>References/</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>sources</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>:</B></FONT><B>
</B>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r1"></A>
[r1]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-19</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r2"></A>
[r2]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-20</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r3"></A>
[r3]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-christian-perspective-on-homosexuality</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r4"></A>
[r4]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-plausibility-of-grounding-moral-values-in-god</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-theistic-ethics-derive-an-ought-from-an-is</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r5"></A>
[r5]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-foundation-of-morality-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r5b"></A>
[r5b]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defining-god</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r6"></A>
[r6]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/do-we-live-in-a-post-modern-society</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r7"></A>
[r7]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/are-there-objective-truths-about-god</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r8"></A>
[r8]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-revolution-in-anglo-american-philosophy</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r9"></A>
[r9]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-law-debate</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r9b"></A>
[r9b]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/formulating-the-moral-argument</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r10"></A>
[r10]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-indispensability-of-theological-meta-ethical-foundations-for-morality</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r11"></A>
[r11]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><A HREF="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-21">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-21</A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r11b"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r11b]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Defender_podcast/20040801MoralArgumentPart3.mp3</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r12"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r12]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/our-grasp-of-objective-moral-values</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">[r13]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r13"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/hawkings-curious-objections-to-divine-creation</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r14"></A>
[r14]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">http://philpapers.org/rec/HORNWM</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Horgan
and Timmons, “New Wave Moral Realism Meets Moral Twin Earth”;
<EM><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Journal of Philosophical
Research</SPAN></EM> 16:447-465 (1991)
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r15"></A>
[r15]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">http://philpapers.org/rec/HORAMF</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Horgan
and Timmons, “Analytical Functionalism Meets Moral Twin Earth”,
in <SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">“</SPAN><EM><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Minds,
Ethics, and Conditionals: Themes from the Philosophy of Frank
Jackson”, </SPAN></EM><EM><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">edited
by Ian Ravenscroft. Oxford University Press (2009). </SPAN></EM>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><EM><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Link:
</SPAN></EM>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">http://thorgan.faculty.arizona.edu/sites/thorgan.faculty.arizona.edu/files/Analytical%20Moral%20Functionalism%20Meets%20Moral%20Twin%20Earth.pdf</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">[r16]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r16"></A>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">[r17]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r17"></A>
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-moral-arguments</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">[r18]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r18"></A>
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument-for-god</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r19"></A>
[r19]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/classifying-immaterial-objects</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r20"></A>
[r20]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">William
Lane Craig, “The Most Gruesome of Guests”, in “Is
Goodness Without God Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and
Ethics”, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">edited by
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Robert. Garcia and Nathan
King. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r21"></A>
[r21]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">Mark
Murphy, “Theism, Atheism, and the Explanation of Moral Value”,
in “<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Is Goodness Without God
Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics”, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">edited
by </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Robert. Garcia and Nathan
King. </SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r22"></A>
[r22]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-god-ground-necessary-moral-truths</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r23"></A>
[r23]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_Perlasca</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r24"></A>
[r24]</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/perfect-being-theology</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="r25"></A>
[r25]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-23</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r2</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>6</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="r26"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-24</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">[r27]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="r27"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-euthyphro-dilemma-once-more</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">[r28]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-taylor0.html</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r28"></A>
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-taylor2.html</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">[r29]
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="r29"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Richard
Taylor, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">"</SPAN><CITE><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Ethics,
Faith, and Reason</SPAN></SPAN></CITE><CITE><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">".
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1985. </SPAN></SPAN></CITE><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="r30"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r30]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Swinburne,
Richard "The Existence of God", Second Edition.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
Cla</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#222222">rendon Press Oxford. Page 130. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<BR>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-44105146812880180572013-05-25T20:32:00.001-07:002013-05-28T14:48:47.145-07:00A Brief Post on Craig's Metaethical Argument and exobiology<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="LibreOffice 4.0.2.2 (Windows)">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="0;0">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20130528;18473107">
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" DIR="LTR">
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><A HREF="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-21"><SPAN LANG="en-US">In</SPAN>
<SPAN LANG="en-US">the context of his defense of the metaethical
argument</SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-US">, William Lane Craig considers
some examples of aliens from the Andromeda galaxy who come to Earth
and attack, either raping and killing humans, or eating</SPAN>
<SPAN LANG="en-US">humans. I will raise some objections to Craig’s
metaethical argument based on that. </SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><SPAN LANG="en-US">Now,
the Andromeda galaxy is perhaps too far away even for advanced
aliens, so let’s say that aliens who evolved on another planet
in the Milky Way come to Earth. Rape is very improbable in that
scenario (why would they want to rape </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>humans</I></SPAN>
<SPAN LANG="en-US">in the first place?), and eating humans</SPAN> <SPAN LANG="en-US">is
also very improbable (why not a more efficient way of getting food,
even if humans happened to be edible to them?), but let’s say
that they want to eat humans</SPAN> <SPAN LANG="en-US">for whatever
reason. </SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><SPAN LANG="en-US">Moreover,
let’s say that the aliens evolved differently, and they have a
sense more or less similar</SPAN> <SPAN LANG="en-US">to our sense of
right and wrong in the way it feels to them, but associated with
different behaviors and/or situations, entities, etc. </SPAN>–
<SPAN LANG="en-US">which is at least compatible with Craig’s</SPAN>
<SPAN LANG="en-US">scenario, and in fact seems to be what the
scenario is about. </SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Speaking
of those scenarios (or the Andromeda variant, galaxy of origin is
irrelevant to the matter at hand), Craig claims:
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<B>Craig: </B>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
I think this extraterrestrial illustration is a very powerful
illustration that, in the absence of God, human morality isn’t
objective. It has no more claim to be objective than some
extraterrestrial alien morality.</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><SPAN LANG="en-US">Let’s
say that the aliens in question</SPAN> <SPAN LANG="en-US">also have a
different visual system. We can see that some of the aliens are
green, and some are red. But they do not perceive any such
differences. However, they do perceive some differences that look to
them similar to our perception of different colors in a number of
cases in which </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>we</I></SPAN> <SPAN LANG="en-US">perceive
no chromatic differences.</SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">So, one
might mirror Craig’s argument and make a metachromatic argument
for theism:
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
I think this extraterrestrial illustration is a very powerful
illustration that, in the absence of God, human color isn’t
objective. It has no more claim to be objective than some
extraterrestrial alien color.</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">But that
clearly does not work.
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">In fact,
even if God exists, the aliens might have different visual systems.
Also, it seems clear that regardless of whether aliens have different
visual systems, if the aliens were to claim, in English, that they
are all the same color, they would be making a false claim, whereas
our claim that some are red and some green would remain true.
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">However,
Craig has not shown that morality is relevantly different from color
in this case. Why would aliens with different visual perceptions
(say, color*, or alien color?) would be no threat to the objectivity
of color (or rather, color statements to be precise, but let’s
leave that aside to simplify), but would be a threat in the case of
morality?
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">That’s
one difficulty for Craig’s argument. Another one is the
following one:
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><B>Is
Craig implicitly making a wide-ranging claim about exobiology? </B>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
More precisely, is Craig implying that no aliens with something more
or less similar to our moral sense in the way it feels to them, but
associated with different behaviors, states, entities, etc., exist,
anywhere in the whole universe? Is he further implying that no such
aliens are nomologically possible? How about metaphysically possible?
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
Craig is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>not
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">making
the implication that there actually are no such aliens, then there is
the following problem: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
Craig’s metaethical theory is that a creature’s moral
obligations are God’s commands.
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
if aliens like that do exist, given that God created them (by means
of evolution) without a moral sense that yields</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
negative assessment of a potential action on their part consisting of
invading the Earth and eating humans, then it seems plausible that
God</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">did
not command them not to invade the Earth and eat humans. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
then, it would not be immoral for said aliens to invade </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
Earth and eat humans. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
even if God exists, and going by Craig’s own metaethical
theory, it seems that we humans have no moral claim against such
aliens if they exist. But if so, in particular, it seems that the
conclusion that those aliens who evolved differently</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
not be doing anything morally wrong if they invaded the Earth and ate
humans</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
not entail or suggest that morality is not objective. </SPAN></I></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
However, in that case, let’s assume that God does not exist for
the sake of the argument, and the aliens in question attack and eat
humans. There are two possibilities:
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
<B>a.</B> The aliens’ actions are immoral, even if they do not
have a moral sense that lets them realize that. That would be akin to
the fact that some of the aliens are green and others red, even if
they do not have a visual sense that perceives that difference.
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%">
<B>b.</B> The aliens’ actions are not immoral.
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
<BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>Either
way</I></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">, there</SPAN> <SPAN LANG="en-US">appears
to be no threat to moral objectivity in the sense of ‘objective’
relevant to Craig’s metaethical argument, which blocks Craig’s
argumentation. </SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><SPAN LANG="en-US">In
fact, as long as Craig is not implying that aliens with such
different minds do not in fact exist, Craig’s own position
seems to entail</SPAN> <SPAN LANG="en-US">that if theism is </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>true
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
aliens with that kind of mind attack and eat humans, their actions
are not</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">immoral.
So, if the non-immorality of the aliens’ actions would not be a
problem for moral objectivity on theism, why would it be a problem
for moral objectivity on non-theism? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Granted,
someone might say that theism entails moral objectivity. But my point
here is that from an assumption that the aliens’ actions are
not immoral, it does not follow that morality is not objective. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">An
alternative would be for Craig to claim that there actually<A HREF="#necessity">[1]</A>
are no aliens that have something more or less akin to a moral sense
but associated with different behaviors, situations, etc. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>But
in that would be a wide-ranging claim about exobiology. Is Craig
actually implying that? If so, I think he ought to clarify it. </B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Even
if he made</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
claim, there would be other problems related to this matter –
apart of course from the problem of justifying such a claim.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 100%">
One of those problems is the one I mentioned above, namely the color
parallel: that in order to argue for the objectivity of morality,
Craig gives the example that the Holocaust was immoral regardless of
whether anyone believes. However, it’s also true that Nazi
uniforms were not red regardless of whether anyone believes.
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 100%">
So, it seems that the same argument for objective morality works for
objective color. So, color is objective. But what if there are aliens
with different visual systems, like the ones outlined above?
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Unless
Craig is committed to a wide-ranging claim about exobiology with
regard to alien </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>visual
systems,</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it
seems to me he ought to explain why the existence of aliens with
visual systems like those outlined</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">above
would not be a problem for color objectivity, yet aliens with
something somewhat similar to our moral system but</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">different
in the sense outlined above would be a problem for moral objectivity.
What’s the difference? (i.e., the difference that is relevant
with regard to objectivity, in the sense of the term ‘objective’
used in the context of Craig’s metaethical argument). </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><A NAME="necessity"></A>
[1] Arguably a claim that there <I>actually </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
no such aliens would not suffice, since one might consider possible
even if not actual scenarios. But it seems to me that there is no
need to argue that point in this context, since denying actuality is
already a wide-ranging claim about exobiology. </SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><BR>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-86366615949127348462013-01-06T08:31:00.000-08:002016-03-11T13:14:31.056-08:00A Reply to the Kalam Cosmological Argument (v. 7.4.1)<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="OpenOffice.org 3.2 (Linux)">
<META NAME="AUTHOR" CONTENT="Ben">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20140310;19260000">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20160311;18100400">
<META NAME="Info 1" CONTENT="">
<META NAME="Info 2" CONTENT="">
<META NAME="Info 3" CONTENT="">
<META NAME="Info 4" CONTENT="">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; text-align: left }
P.western { font-family: "Calibri", serif; font-size: 12pt }
P.cjk { font-size: 12pt }
A.cjk:link { so-language: zxx }
A.ctl:link { so-language: zxx }
A.western:visited { so-language: en-US }
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" DIR="LTR">
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT SIZE=5><B>A
Reply to the Kalam Cosmological Argument</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT SIZE=5><B>.</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#00ae00">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><U><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Introduction"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">1.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Introduction"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">Introduction</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Introduction"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">
and some terminology</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Introduction"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></B></U></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><U><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceptualanalysis"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">2.
An analysis of the proposed creato</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceptualanalysis"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">r,
and the proposed creation account</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceptualanalysis"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></B></U></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#21"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>2.1.
Timelessness. </B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#211"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#211"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>1</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#211"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#211"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>1</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#211"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#211"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
Timelessness and change.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#212"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.1.2
Timelessness, changelessness and quiescence. </B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#2121"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.1.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#2121"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#2121"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.1.
A brief analysis.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#2122"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.1.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#2122"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#2122"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.2.
Some terminology.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#2123"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.1.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#2123"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#2123"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.3.
Changes and infinity.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#2124"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.1.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#2124"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#2124"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.4.
Discrete time.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#absolutebeginning"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.1.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#absolutebeginning"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#absolutebeginning"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.5.
An absolute temporal beginning.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#noontologicaldifference"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.1.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noontologicaldifference"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noontologicaldifference"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.6
N</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noontologicaldifference"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>o
ontological difference.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#timelessnessnocreation"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.1.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timelessnessnocreation"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>3</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timelessnessnocreation"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timelessnessnocreation"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>Timelessness
sans creatio</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timelessnessnocreation"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>n.
More on Craig’s description</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timelessnessnocreation"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#amorphous" NAME="mor"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.1.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#amorphous" NAME="mor"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>4</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#amorphous" NAME="mor"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.
Metrically amorphous time.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#conclusionconception"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conclusionconception"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conclusionconception"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
Conclusions </B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conclusionconception"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>based
on</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conclusionconception"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>
the analysis of </B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conclusionconception"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>the
proposed creator</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conclusionconception"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>.</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><U><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3.</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">T</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">h</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">e
</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">f</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">irst
</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">p</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">remise</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of the KCA.</FONT></FONT></A></B></U></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><U><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3.1.
</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca2"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Beginning
to exist and coming into existence</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
A</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">n
alternative</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
principle</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.</FONT></FONT></A></B></U></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca4"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>3.2.
Arguments in </B></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca3"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>support
of the first premise.</B></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Nothing comes from nothing"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3.2.1.
</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca4"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Nothing
comes from nothing</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Nothing comes from nothing"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT></A></SPAN></B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca5"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>3.2.2.
Another</B></U></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca5"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>
alternative principle.</B></U></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca5"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>
</B></U></FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca6"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3.2.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca6"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca6"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca6"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Is
the universe </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca6"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">an
unjustified exception?</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></B></U></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#1pkca7"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3.2.4.
Empirical evidence. </SPAN></B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><U><B>4.
</B></U></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#2pkca"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>The
Second Premise of </B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#2pkca"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>the
KCA.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#Hilbert"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Hilbert"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>1.
</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Hilbert"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>Hilbert’s</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Hilbert"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>
Hotel.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#2pkca3"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>2.
Grim reapers.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#aristoteliandiscreteness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>3</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#aristoteliandiscreteness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#aristoteliandiscreteness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>
</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#aristoteliandiscreteness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>Aristotelian-d</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#aristoteliandiscreteness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>iscrete
time</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#aristoteliandiscreteness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>,
</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#aristoteliandiscreteness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>infinite
regres</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#aristoteliandiscreteness"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>s
and more grim reapers.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#placers"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#placers"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>.
Grim placers and/or grim signalers.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleplacer"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleplacer"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>1.
Possibility of a grim placer.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#compresstime"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#compresstime"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>.2.
Compressibility of spacetime.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitary"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitary"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitary"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>3</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitary"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>.
Infinitary patchwork </B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitary"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>and
binary patchwork</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitary"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#binary"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4.4.4.
Binary patchwork suffices.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<U><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinite"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>4.4.5.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinite"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Infinite
past, undefeated.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></U></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#successive addition"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#successive addition"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>5</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#successive addition"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>.
An infinity by successive addition?</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#Shandy"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>5</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Shandy"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>.1.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Shandy"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>
Tristram Shandy.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meth"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U>4.5.2.
Methuselah.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#orbits"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>5</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#orbits"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#orbits"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>3</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#orbits"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>.
Orbits and parity.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scientific"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4.</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scientific"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">6</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scientific"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
Scientific cosmology</FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT></B></U></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#shbbm"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4.</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#shbbm"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">6</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#shbbm"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.1.
The </FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#shbbm"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Friedmann–Lemaître</FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#shbbm"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>
Model.</FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#shbbm"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT></A></B></U></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#guth1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#guth1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#guth1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>.2.
The Borde-</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#guth1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>Guth-</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#guth1"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>Vilenkin
Theorem.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#othermodels"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#othermodels"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#othermodels"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>3.
Other arguments</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#othermodels"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>
based on scientific cosmology</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#othermodels"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#cyclic"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#cyclic"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#cyclic"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>.4.
</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#cyclic"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>Cyclic
models and </B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#cyclic"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>others</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#cyclic"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>
for an infinite past</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Conclusion"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">5.
Conclusio</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Conclusion"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff">ns</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT></B></U></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notes"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U><B>6.
Notes. </B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#references"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U>7.
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#references"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U>R</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#references"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><U>eferences.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="Introduction"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>1.
Introduction and some terminology.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P LANG="zxx" CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">a.
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">The
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">premises
and conclusion of the </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">Kalam
Cosmological Argument </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">(KCA)
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">can
be stated as follows: </SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CraigBlackwell"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>[</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CraigBlackwell"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>r</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CraigBlackwell"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>1]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P1.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P2. The
universe began to exist. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">C. The
universe has a cause. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The KCA is
defended by some theist philosophers in combination with other
arguments intended to bridge the gap between the conclusion that the
universe has a cause and a conclusion that the cause of the universe
is a being with certain properties, in particular a personal agent of
great power. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="KCA+"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I will call
the combination of the KCA with those other arguments, “KCA+”.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In this
essay, I will assess the KCA+, and argue that it provides no support
for the conclusion that there is a powerful personal agent who
created the universe, both by challenging the premises of the KCA
itself, and the creation account proposed in usual versions of the
KCA+. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. I will
focus mostly on William Lane Craig’s version of the KCA+, but I
will also assess some alternative arguments. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c. I will
use the word '‘argument’ to denote (depending on context)
either formal arguments (i.e., premises and conclusion), or the
arguments (in the sense of ‘arguing a case’) given in
defense of said premises; these usages are common and shouldn’t
cause confusion, given context. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">d. I will
call the parts of this essay ‘sections’ and
‘subsections’, without using "sub-subsections"
or similar terms. Context and some links between different parts of
this essay should prevent ambiguity. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">e. By
'incoherent' I mean that a claim is either meaningless, or meaningful
but contradictory. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="conceptualanalysis"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>2. An
analysis of the proposed creator, and the proposed creation account.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to William Lane Craig, the creator proposed by the <A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+">KCA+</A>
is a personal being who is timeless without creation, and temporal
with creation. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But that
raises questions like: ‘What does the word ‘timeless’
mean, in this context?' 'Is such claim coherent?' ‘Is it
compatible with the premises of the KCA?', etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In this
section I will assess some of those issues, and generally Craig’s
creation account. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="Timelessness and changelessness"></A><A NAME="21"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>2.1.
Timelessness. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P LANG="zxx" CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">The
word </SPAN></FONT><SPAN LANG="en-US">‘timeless’</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">
is not a word colloquially used, in the relevant sense.</SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timelessworkofart"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">[</SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timelessworkofart"><SPAN LANG="en-US">1</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timelessworkofart"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US">]</SPAN></FONT></A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet, Craig
does not seem to provide a clear definition, which leaves the matter
of the meaning of the claim that God is timeless without creation but
temporal with creation, obscure at best. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In order to
try to understand what Craig means by ‘timeless’, or at
least to approximate the concept, one potential approach would be to
look at a list of entities that Craig calls “timeless”
and at a list of entities that he does not call “timeless”
- and much better yet, entities that he clearly would categorize as
<I>not</I> timeless -, and try to grasp the meaning of the term
‘timeless’ from that. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
e</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ntities
that are </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">called
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“timeless”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">by
Craig </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
easy to find.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Moreover, he claims that God is temporal with creation, and given his
argumentation, it seems clear that his position is that, say, horses,
planets, humans, etc., are not timeless. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, entities that Craig calls </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“timeless”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
are not </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">so
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">easy
to find. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
gives the example of a number</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timeless"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timeless"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timeless"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">he’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
not a Platonist, and furthermore, questions the existence of numbers.
[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#nominalism"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r3</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#nominalism">]</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Still, we may understand </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">his
example as implying that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>if</B></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“numbers
exist”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
were true</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
an ontological claim</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
-</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
number</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
would be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">an
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">example
of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">timeless
entit</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">y.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><BR>However,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
example</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
alone does not </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">suffice
to grasp </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
meaning of the word in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
usage. Nor does the combination of th</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e
example of a number</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and the very different </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">example
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
God. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Still,
perhaps we may add to the list</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
some </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">examples
of entities – or alleged entities – called </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“timeless”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
by some other philosophers</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
M</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">aybe
Craig and those other philosophers are all using the word </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘timeless’</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in the same sense. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
so</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
on the list</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of timeless entities – or candidates to timeless entities, if
they were entities and existed -</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we would have</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
say, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
number 5, the set of natural numbers, the proposition </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
water is H2O, </SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">O</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">list
of non-timeless</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
entities</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we would have trains, planets, humans, mosquitoes, viruses,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
telephones</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">apples,
oranges, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">human
souls if they existed, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">if </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">one</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
tried to grasp the meaning of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘timeless’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">based on those lists, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it
would seem obvious that personal beings are </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">not
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">timeless.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
not obvious that personal beings are never timeless, then that
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">approach </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
grasping the meaning of the word </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘timeless’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'
in this context </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">does not work</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
at all</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> – at least, not
for me.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>Perhaps</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
given </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
relational theory of time, it might be </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">said
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that being timeless is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at
least </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">equivalent to not
standing in temporal relationships</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
even if the meaning is not the same</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
That does not seem to help much in my view, but it’s something</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Moreover</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
there is another way of at least approaching </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
concept of timelessness, namely considering some of the consequences
of timelessness according to Craig, which one may deduce from some of
his statements. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, based
on that, and even though what Craig means by ‘timeless’
remains obscure, I will proceed to analyze some of his claims. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="211"></A><A NAME="timelessness and change"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
Timeless</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ness and change. </SPAN></B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">claims
that in his timeless state, God is changeless, or unchanging</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
Craig also </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">claims
that </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">God
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can
change and changed</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
ceased to be timeless</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Godchanged"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Godchanged"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Godchanged"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">4</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Godchanged"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">B</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ut</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
how can </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">we </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">make
sense of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">those claims? </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">We
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can understand the idea that
an </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">object </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">O
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">remains</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
changeless </SPAN><I>for a while </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
then changes</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">. That means that
O</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">remains
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">unchanged </SPAN><I>as time
goes by</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, </SPAN><I>during some
period</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, and </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">after
that period ends, O changes. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">clearly that is not
applicable here, since that would imply that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">God’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
changeless state obtains during a temporal interval </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">through</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
which God remains unchanged, yet Craig is claiming timelessness in
addition to changelessness, and while Craig’s usage of the word
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘timeless’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'
is not clear, it is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at least
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">clear that a timeless state
cannot be one during which time goes by. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
the claim</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
changelessness is also very obscure. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Moreover,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
the context of his defense of the KCA, Craig claims that
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">instantaneous
changes are</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">impossible,
and </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">every
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">event/</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">change
has a finite, non-zero duration. </SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">5</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, let’s
consider the <I>change</I> in God from being timeless to being
temporal. That is surely a <I>change</I>, in the usual sense of the
word ‘change’ - which is Craig’s usage -, and so it
follows from Craig’s claims that it has a finite, non-zero
duration, say d > 0. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Thus,
there is a temporal interval of non-zero duration </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that </SPAN><I>ends </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at
the first temporal state </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
the world, namely </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the first
state at which God is temporal. That entails</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
there was a temporal interval of non-zero duration </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d
</SPAN><I>before</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
was </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">time. But that is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">absurd</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">actually </SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">addressed
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">this</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">objection
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or
an essentially similar one</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
on his website</SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraigreply"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">6</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraigreply"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and contended </SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that:
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a.
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">When
he defines what </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">“event”</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">means</SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">5</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
the context of his defense of the KCA, </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">he’s</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
trying to rule out instantaneous changes</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">technical
sense</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
of </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘event’</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
anything that is instantaneous would not count as an event</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">b.
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Th</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">e
creation of the universe by God</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
or, for that matter, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">God’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
changing from timeless to temporal, would not qualify as an event</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in that sense, since </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
instantaneous. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">c</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">When
he said that God </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">changed
and ceased to be timeless, he was using the word </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘change’</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in a different sense from the sense in which he was using </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
word</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in the context of the </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Kalam
Cosmological Argument. Furthermore, when he said </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">God
changed</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
context</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
he </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">merely
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">meant
that </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">God’s</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
properties at his timeless state are different from </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">his
properties</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
at his first temporal state. </SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">6</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d.
In any case, any </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">problem
can be resolved </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">simply
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">by
stipulating</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
in the context of the defense of the KCA, </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
one </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">talk</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ing</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
about changes of equal, non-zero and arbitrary duration</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
so the alleged contradiction can be resolved simply by a
clarification of </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">one’s</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
terms. </SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">6</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">al</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">l
four </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">claims a-d. above are
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">mistaken</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
for the following reasons: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a.
Craig </SPAN><I>defined</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> '</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘event’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
to mean </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘any</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">change’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">then </SPAN><I>claimed</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that </SPAN><I><B>because</B></I><I> </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">any
change takes time, then under that definition, there can</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">not
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">be any instantaneous events</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
which is another way of saying that </SPAN><I><B>because</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
any change takes time, there cannot be any instantaneous changes. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><I>not</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> the case </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">anything instantaneous would
not count as an '</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘event’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in that sense of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘event’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><I><B>if</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> that
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">instantaneous thing </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">were</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
a change. Any </SPAN><I>change</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
instantaneous or not, would be an event, by definition</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Rather</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
in the context of that defense of the KCA, </SPAN><I><B>Craig c</B></I><I><B>laim</B></I><I><B>s
</B></I><I><B>that any change takes time</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">5</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and from </SPAN><I><B>that </B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
the definition of '</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘event’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
as 'any </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">change’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
- rather than from the definition of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘event’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
alone</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> – </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">he
</SPAN><I><B>conclu</B></I><I><B>des</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
t</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">hat </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
are no </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">instantaneous </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">events.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that context, Craig does </SPAN><I>not </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">define
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘change’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
Rather, he uses '</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘change’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in the usual sense, and defines </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘event’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'
in terms of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘change’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
objection here is that the </SPAN><I>change</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in God from his timeless state to his first temporal state would be,
well, a </SPAN><I>change</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, and as
such, by </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
own claims, it would have a finite, non-zero duration, resulting in a
contradiction. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">b.
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As before</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
since </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘event’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
means </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘any</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">change’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in the sense in which Craig uses the term </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘event’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'
in the context of his defense of the KCA</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">God’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
becoming temporal does qualify as an event</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
since </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that is clearly </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
</SPAN><I>change </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in God</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">said
change in God </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">were</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
instantaneous</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> and ha</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
no finite, non-zero duration</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
then tha</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">t would </SPAN><I>contradict
</I><I>Craig’s</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> </SPAN><I>claim</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that any change takes time</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and has a finite, non-zero duration</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">c.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If by </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">saying
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that God changed</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and ceased to be timeless, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig
had merely meant t</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">hat </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">God’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
properties at his timeless state are different from the properties
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">God </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">has
at his first temporal state</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
then for that matter </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">might as well had said that
God</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> changed and ceased to be
temporal, becoming timeless</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
But clearly, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in context, that
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would be a very different
claim</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
considering context, one can ascertain that Craig </SPAN><I>did</I><I>
not</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> merely mean that God has
different properties at those two states</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Moreover,
we can tell that when he said that God </SPAN><I>changed</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
Craig meant that</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">...God
</SPAN><I>changed</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, using the
word </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘change’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'
in</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> the usual sense</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
of that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">word</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in English. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
usual sense of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘change’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is also the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">way
in which </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">used
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘change’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in the context of the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">defense
of the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">KCA</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
as well</SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">5</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
since he defined </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘event’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in terms of change, but gave no definition of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘change’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
or made any suggestion that he was using </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘change’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in a non-standard</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, technical</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
fashion</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d.
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Sti</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">pulating
that one is going to talk about those events in particular does not
change the fact that the </SPAN><I><B>claim</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that any change takes time and has a finite, non-zero duration, plus
the claim that God changed from </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">timeless state to </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
first temporal state, entails a contradiction. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
contradiction </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">still </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">follows
from </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
claim</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">my assessment</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
c</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ontradictory claim</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">plus </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
fact that in his </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">reply </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
the objection mentioned above </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">he</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">misunderstood the claims he
had made earlier, only compound the problem of the obscurity of his
creation account, raising</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">serious </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">doubts
about his own understanding of the position </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">he’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
defending</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, and </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the coherence of said
position. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still, we
may consider whether there is a way out for a defender of a position
similar to Craig’s. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
there were a way </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">out of this
particular difficulty</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, it
would require </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">den</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ying
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
any change takes </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a positive
amount of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">time</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
since time before time makes no sense</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and God clearly changes, on </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
description or similar ones, from a state at which </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">he’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
timeless, to a state at which he is not timeless. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">denying that any change takes
a positive amount of time </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
raise another </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">difficulty</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
namely that instantaneous changes </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">seem
to be a problem </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">under a
theory of time that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">maintains</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that time is discrete</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, which
is the kind of theory defended by Craig and usually espoused by
defenders of the </SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">KCA+</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">More
precisely, if time is dense, and – for instance – there
are </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">two </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">temporal
intervals A=[</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a, b</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">)
and B=[</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">b, c</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">),
then </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the temporal distance
between A and B is zero. I</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">f P
obtains all through A</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, and</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
¬P obtains all </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">through B,
there is a sense in which it make</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
sense to say that the change </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">from
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">P’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
obtaining to </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">P’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
not obtaining </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
instantaneous. Yet, if time is discrete, this option is not
available, and </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
hard to see how one can make sense of instantaneous changes </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
discrete time. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But let’s
consider other difficulties, independent from the previous objection.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="212"></A><A NAME="Timelessness changelessness and quiescence"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
Timelessness, changelessness and quiescence.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to Craig, the universe cannot have existed in an </FONT>“absolutely
quiescent state”<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">, like
</FONT>God’s – alleged – <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">initial
timeless state</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">. </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent">[</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent">r</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent">5</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigevent">]</A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">as in the case of
changelessness, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that
raises the question of how </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">we</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
can make sense of such a claim</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#changelessquiescent"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#changelessquiescent">2</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#changelessquiescent"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></A>.
U<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">sually, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">we</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would understand that a quiescent object is one that is at rest </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>as
time goes by</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">, but
given </FONT>Craig’s<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> claim
of timelessness, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the claim
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of quiescence </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
puzzling. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
the rest of </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Timelessness changelessness and quiescence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
subsection,</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> I will
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">continue to </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">analyze
that claim, as well as the claim of changelessness in the context of
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">his</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
creation account. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="2121"></A><A NAME="A brief analysis"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>2.1.2.1.
A brief analysis. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let’s
consider first two scenarios, ordering states of the world causally.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Scenario a:</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>First state of the world: </I></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Timeless
state S. The only </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">object
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that exists </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
O. </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#abstract"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#abstract">3</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#abstract"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></A></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>Second state of the world: </I></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Temporal state. t=0. The objects
are O and U, and O is the cause of the existence of U. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>Third state of the world: </I></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Temporal state; t=r > 0. The
objects are O, U and, perhaps some other objects. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Scenario
b:</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>First state of the world:</I> </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Initial temporal state; t=0. The
only object is O. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>Second state of the world:</I>
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Temporal state; t=r>0. The
objects are O and U, and O is the cause of the existence of U. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>Third state of the world:</I> </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Temporal state; t=s > r. The
objects are O, U and, perhaps some other objects. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
allegedly and going by </FONT>Craig’s<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
statements, the </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[causally]
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">first state </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of
the world </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">would be
changeless and/or absolutely quiescent in scenario </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but neither changeless nor quiescent in scenario </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#changelessquiescent"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#changelessquiescent">2</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#changelessquiescent"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But that
seems clearly false, since the first scenario and the second seem to
be <I>exactly</I> the same in terms of changes and lack of
quiescence. In particular, the entity O at the first stage of the
world <I>changes</I> from that state to the second state of the world
in the two scenarios. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover,
if, in scenario b, object O begins to exist, then it seems so does
object O in scenario a, and so in particular, Craig’s God would
be an entity that begins to exist but has no cause of his existence,
contradicting premise 1 of the KCA. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On the
other hand, if it is not the case that in scenario b, object O begins
to exists, then for that matter it might be, for all we know, that if
the past is finite, it is not the case that the universe begins to
exist, contradicting premise 2 of the KCA. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In brief,
those ‘two’ scenarios appear to be ontologically
identical, despite the label ‘timeless’ in the first one,
and rather than two scenarios, it seems to be one with different
<I>labels</I>.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">At this
point, someone might suggest that scenario a might not properly
represent Craig’s view of God’s being timeless without
creation and temporal with it, and that perhaps, on his view, there
might not be a first temporal state at t=0, but instead an open
temporal interval of the form (0, u] for some u>0, and that there
are times arbitrarily close to zero, but not an initial moment.
However, Craig’s position entails that such open interval is
<I>impossible</I> because it would be an actual infinity, so this
objection would fail.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In the
following subsections, I will analyze this matter in greater detail. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="2122"></A><A NAME="Some terminology"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2.1.</FONT>2<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.2.
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Some terminology </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
assumptions </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">for the rest
of </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Timelessness changelessness and quiescence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">subsectio</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Timelessness changelessness and quiescence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">n
2.1.3</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>1.</B> I
will use <FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3>use bold</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3>,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3>italic</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3>,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3>uppercase letters
(e.g., </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I>,
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3>,
etc.) to denote finite temporal intervals, and bold italic lowercase
letters (e.g., </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>t</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I>,
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>u</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3>,
etc.) to denote temporal instants. I will also number them (e.g.,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>t(1), t(2)</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3>,
etc.).</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>2</B>.
When I talk of temporal intervals or instants, I’m talking
about actual features of the world – whatever those happen to
be -, not about mathematical models. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>3</B>.
When I speak of temporal intervals, I’m assuming those
intervals are of finite duration, though not necessarily of equal
duration. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>4.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN>By '◄' I mean ‘earlier than’, in the usual,
temporal sense of ‘earlier’'. For instance, <I><B>J</B></I>◄<I><B>K</B></I>
means that <I><B>J </B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and </SPAN><I><B>K
</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">do not overlap</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in any interval of non-zero duration</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and </SPAN><I><B>J</B></I> happens earlier than <I><B>K</B></I>. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>5</B><B>.
</B><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>When
I prove lemmas, unless otherwise stated, </B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>I’m</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>
assuming any parts of </B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>Craig’s</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>
position, as required.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
In other words, those lemmas are statements that follow from </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Craig’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
position. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">I
will explain why that is his position </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">when</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">such
explanation is needed. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="2123"></A><A NAME="changesandinfinity"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>2.1.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>2</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>3</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>
Chan</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>ges
and infinity</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Lemma
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1:</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN>nfinitely
many actual changes in the world are impossible, regardless of
whether their duration is equal. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Proof:
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">This
can easily be seen in </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig’s</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
defense of the KCA. For example</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
he claims that an infinite temporal regress is an actual infinity.
</SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepage116"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepage116"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepage116"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">7</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepage116"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
context, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
talking about </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">changes
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of
equal </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">temporal
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">length,
but clearly, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">his
claim that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">they
constitute an </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">actual
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">infinity
in the sense </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of
cardinality does</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
not depend on their length</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and he claims that such infinities are impossible. </FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="2124"></A><A NAME="discretetime"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2.1.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>4.
D</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>iscrete
time </B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>Definition</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">:
A temporal interval </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>J</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
has property Q if and only if </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
is some </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">positive
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">integer
N(</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><B>J)</B></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
such that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><B>J</B></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">does
not have more than </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">N(</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><B>J)</B></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">temporal
subintervals</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
different from each other. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Equivalently,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><B>J</B></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
has property Q if and only if it is not the case that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
are more actual </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">different
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">temporal
subintervals of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><B>J
</B></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">than
any natural numbe</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Lemma
2:</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
there are temporal intervals, then every temporal interval </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><B>J</B></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
property Q. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Proof: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let’s</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
assume </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
is a</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">temporal
interval </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>J</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
d</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">oes
not have property Q. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">By
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma1"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>lemma
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there are only finitely many </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actual
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">changes
that happen </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
the world </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">during
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J.
</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
let </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>m
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>>
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">natural
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">number
greater than </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
number of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actual
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">changes</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">during
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>J</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Since
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
not have property Q, there is some natural number </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>r
> </B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>(2*
</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>m</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>)</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(for
instance), such that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>
</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actually
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>r
</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">different
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">temporal
subintervals, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J(1</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>)</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J(2</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>),
</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J(3)..</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>,
</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J(r)</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>.</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>Let
us consider the following </FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>changes</FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>,
for k in {</FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>1</FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>,...,r-1}
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>E(k):
God changes from not knowing that <FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>J(k)</I></FONT>
is past to knowing that <FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>J(k)</I></FONT> is
past. </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>F(k):
God changes from not knowing that <FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>J(k)</I></FONT>
is present to knowing that <FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>J(k)</I></FONT>
is present. </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Note
that tho</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">se</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
are actual changes in the world</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
more precisely </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
the mind of God. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Given
that the intervals are different from each other, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">th</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ere
are at least </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>r-</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
> m </B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">distinct
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">changes</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
contradicting the assumption. That proves </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">lemma
2</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">, under the
assumption that God exists, which is clearly </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig’s</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
position. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="lemma3"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Lemma
3: </B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If there are temporal
intervals, every such interval </SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>J</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>
</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
divided in </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">finitely
many </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ordered
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">temporal
intervals</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
each of which has no actual proper subintervals. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Proof:
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">L</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">et</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
n(</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)
be the total number of actual temporal subintervals of</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
each subinterval</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>;
</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">by
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma2"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><U><B>lemma
2</B></U></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><U><B>.
</B></U></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n(</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is finite for all </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>.
</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
given</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
some interval </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
if n(</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)=1,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we’re</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
through, since </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
has no proper subintervals. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Suppose
that lemma </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">3
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true for</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
any</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J
</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
that n(</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)
< n</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
for some n</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
> 1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and let </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K
</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
such that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n(</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)=n</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">T</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hen</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>(1)</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>
</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
a proper subinterval of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>.
</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
by </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hypothesis</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the lemma applies both to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>(1)</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>
</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
to any part of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
before and after </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K(</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>1)</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Then, by induction, the lemma is proved. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma4"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Lemma
4: </B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
there are temporal instants, then for every two instants </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>t</B></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>u</B></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
such that </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>t
</B></I></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">◄</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>u</B></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there is some </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">nonnegative
integer N(</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>t,
u</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">),
such that there are no more than N(</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>t,
u</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)
instants between </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>t
</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>u.
</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Proof:
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Similar
to the proof of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma2"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>lemma
2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
with </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
required </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">changes</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to address instants instead of intervals. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="lemma5"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>Lemma
5</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Either there are temporal intervals</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that do not have actual divisions</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
(i.e., no actual proper subintervals)</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or there are instants. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Proof:
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
a tensed theory of time, t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">emporal
becoming is a real feature of the world, so if there are no
intervals, it seems </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">clear
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
are instants. If there are intervals, there a</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">re
intervals that don't have actual divisions in smaller</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
intervals, by </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma3"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>lemma
3.</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="absolutebeginning"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>2.1.3.5.
An absolute temporal beginning </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma6"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Lemma 6: </B>If
there are temporal intervals, there is an absolutely first such
temporal interval <I><B>K(0)</B></I>, which has no actual proper
subintervals. Moreover, if there is more than one interval, then
there is a second such interval <I><B>K(1)</B></I><I><B> </B></I>with
no proper subintervals. Generally the past is composed of finitely
many such temporal intervals, each of which has no proper
subintervals. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Proof: Let’s
assume there are infinitely many past intervals {<I><B>K(n)</B></I><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>},
</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">for
all natural numbers n. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let’s
consider the events</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><FONT COLOR="#000000">G</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">(n):
God changes from not knowing that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>K(n)</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">past</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> to
knowing that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>K(n)</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> past</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">. </FONT></B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><FONT COLOR="#000000">H</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">(</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">n</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">):
God changes from not knowing that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>K</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>(</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>n</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>)</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is present to knowing that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>K</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>(</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>n</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>)</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">p</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">resent.</FONT></B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
there are infinitely many </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actual
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">past
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">changes</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
contradicting </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">lemma
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
proves that if there are temporal intervals, there are finitely many
past ones, assuming that God exists – which is Craig’s
position -, and other parts of his position. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Since
each such interval is divided in finitely many subintervals each of
which has no proper subintervals by previous lemmas, then it follows
that if there are temporal intervals, then there are finitely many
past intervals with no proper subdivisions, and a first such interval
<FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K(0)</B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
there is some other interval </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J
</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
that begins earlier than </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J
</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">than
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K(0)</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then by </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">lemma
3</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
can divide </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">i</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ntervals</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that are not further divided</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and one of them would be earlier than </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K(0)</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
a contradiction. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">By
a similar procedure, we can construct a second one, and so on, and
the total number up to the present time must be finite by </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">lemma
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
since otherwise we could construct an infinite sequence of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">temporal
changes</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
proves </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">lemma
6.</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma7"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Lemma 7: </B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
there</SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are temporal instants,
there is a first temporal instant </SPAN><I><B>t(0)</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Similarly, there is a second instant </SPAN><I><B>t(1)</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
a third one </SPAN></SPAN><I><B>t(2)</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and generally the past is composed of a finite number of such
instants. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Proof: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Like
the proof of </SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">lemma
6</SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
removing superfluous parts and making </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
necessary</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
changes</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">address</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
instants instead of intervals. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma8"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Lemma 8</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Either there is a first temporal instant </SPAN><I><B>t(0),</B></I>
<SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
a first </SPAN></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">interval
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K(0)</B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>
</B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
has no proper temporal subintervals. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Proof: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
follows from lemmas </SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">5</SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">6</SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and </SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma7"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">7</SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma9"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Lemma 9</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
There is an absolute first, temporal state of the world T(0)</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
with no temporally proper states contained in it</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Moreover, there is a second such state T(1), a third T(2), and
generally the past if composed of finitely many such states. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
there are instants, then let T(n) be the state of the world at </SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma7"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>t(n)</B></I></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
all </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">different
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">past
instants</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
taking t(n) </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">◄
t(n+1). </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
clear, then, for k>n, T(k) is different from T(n), though</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
we may as well prove that too, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
follows: F</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
k>n, at T(k) God knows that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma7"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>t(n)</B></I></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
past and that there are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
past instants, whereas at T(n), it is not the case that God knows
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma7"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>t(n)</B></I></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
past and it is not the case </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
God knows that there are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
past instants. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
if k>n, then the states T(k) and T(n) are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actually
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">different
from each other.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,
since each T(n) corresponds to a single instant, it </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
no </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">proper
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">temporal
subdivisions. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
there are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">no
instants</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then there </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">intervals</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
with no proper subintervals by </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">lemma
5</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
So, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let
T(n) be the state of the world at </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma6"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><U><B>K(n)</B></U></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
for all past</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
intervals with no proper temporal subintervals, and taking </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K(n)
</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">◄
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K(n+1).
</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
for k>n, at T(k) God knows that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma6"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><U><B>K(n)</B></U></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
past and that there are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least n past </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">intervals</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
with no proper subintervals</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
whereas at T(n), it is not the case that God knows that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#lemma6"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><U><B>K(n)</B></U></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
past and it is not the case that God knows that there are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least n past intervals with no proper subintervals</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
So, if k>n, then the states </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
the world </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">T(k)
and T(n) are different from each other.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,
since each T(n) corresponds to a single interval with no proper
subintervals, there are no actual temporal divisions in</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
each</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
state T(n)</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This establishes lemma 9. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noontologicaldifference"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2.1.</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>3</B></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>6.</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
No ontological difference </B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let’s consider
now the following two scenarios, ordering the states in terms of
causal priority. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario 1:</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First state of
the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Timeless state S. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The only object is
God, which exists timelessly at S and without a cause of his
existence. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second state of
the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First temporal state
T(0). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">God
exists temporally, and the universe</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">4</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
exists. The change from the first to the second state of the world,
including the creation of the universe and </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">God’s</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
own change from timeless to temporal, takes place because God intends
to bring it about. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Third state of
the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second temporal
state T(1). The objects are God, the universe, and perhaps some other
objects. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario 2:</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First state of
the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First temporal state
T(0). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The only object is
God, who exists temporally at T(0) and without a cause. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second state of
the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second temporal
state T(1). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>God exists
temporally, and the universe exists. The change from the first to the
second state of the world, including the creation of the universe,
takes place because God intends to bring it about. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Third state of
the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Third
temporal state T(2). The objects are God, the universe, and the same
other objects as in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(if
any), with the same causes. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
appears that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">even
though </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">word
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘timeless’</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
used</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in the first scenario</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the first causal state in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ontologically
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">no
different</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">like
the first temporal </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
causal </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">state
T(0) in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
In other words, it seems those </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">aren’t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
really two scenarios, but one scenario with two different labels. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">This
is so because</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>i. In both cases,
what we have is a first state of the world <I>changing</I> into the
next, then the next, and so on. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>ii. In both cases,
God exists without a cause of his existence at the first state of the
world. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>iii. In both cases,
the universe exists at the second state of the world, and exists
because God intends to bring it about, and so on. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>iv. Generally, one
is not able to find a distinction on those states by inspection of
the description, other than the difference in the words that are
used. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,
saying that the difference between the two scenarios is that one
state – namely, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">state
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S
in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– is timeless</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and changeless</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and the other – namely, T(0) in</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
scenario 2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– is temporal</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and changing</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or that in one of them there at least one tensed fact, whereas in the
other one there are no tensed facts,</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
etc., </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
fail to address the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objection</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
since that would </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">amount
to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">denying</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
there is no ontological difference, without explaining </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">how</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">why</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
is so, which is a burden on the defender of the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">KCA</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">+</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
since </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
seems </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">intuitively
very plausible </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the states are ontologically identical</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just
by looking at the description</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
those states</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">regardless
of the word </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘timeless’</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
particular, on</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e
can tell that despite the claim that the first state in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
said to be</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
timeless</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>not</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
changeless. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
fact, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘both’</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
states are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">changeless</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and for the same reason, namely that j</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ust
as God changes from his first to his second state in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
he does so in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
seems </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
remains the case that there is an entity – i.e., God –
that exists at a first state of the world and without a cause of his
existence, changes to a second state, then to a third one, etc.,
regardless of whether the first state of that entity is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">called
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘timeless’</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Thus,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">i</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">f</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the concept of timelessness is coherent and entails changelessness,
then </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is improperly described as timeless, since the first state is not
changeless, and hence not timeless</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
It appears, then, that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is just </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
plus a</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
false</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
claim of timelessness. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let’s
consider now potential objections, claiming ontological differences
between </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>Objection 1:
</B></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">An
ontological difference</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
2</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
that temporal states of God </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>must</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">change
as time goes by, whereas the timeless state S in </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
could </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">have
remained unchanged. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, if God exists at temporal state T(0) – as in
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">–</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>necessarily</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there will be a second temporal state T(1), and </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>necessarily</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
God will change from T(0) to T(1). On the other hand, if God exists
in a timeless state S (as in </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">),
then it is </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>possible</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
given that first timeless state </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
God, that God never changes</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
problem with that objection is that it follows from any creation
hypotheses posited by defenders of the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">KCA</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">+</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">–
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">i.e.,
given what </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
first state </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>actually</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
would</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
have </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">en</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
based on the implications of their claims –</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
that it is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>impossible</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
God never changes given that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">particular</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
first allegedly timeless state</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
S</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
which </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">shows
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">both
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
are indistinguishable in that regard as well, as the following
reasoning shows</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
(as usual, the states of the world are ordered causally): </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario3"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario
3:</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First state of
the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Timeless state S.
The only object is God, who exists timelessly at S and without a
cause. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second state of
the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Temporal state T(0).
God exists temporally, and the universe exists temporally. The change
from the first to the second state of the world, including the
creation of the universe and God’s own change from timeless to
temporal, takes place because God intends to bring it about. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario4"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario
4: </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First state of
the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Timeless
state S'. The only object is God, which exists timelessly at S' and
without a cause. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There
are no temporal states of the world. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
3</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
if God does not intend </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>at
</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>the
allegedly timeless state </B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>S</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to change, then at T(0) God </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just
found himself altered</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, if </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
intent to change does not exist </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>at
</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>the
allegedly timeless state </B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>S</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then the change </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
something brought</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
about</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
because God intends to bring it about, but something that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">happened</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
beyond his intent. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
is so because the change under consideration is a change </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
state, and</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
from </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">causally</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
first </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">state
S</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
a change </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
S </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
T(0)</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
God does not intend </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
S</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to bring about the change, then </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">said
change cannot have been caused by </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
intent at T(0)</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
or at any later state of the world</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
given that S is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">causally
prior </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
T(0)</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and to any other state. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
contradicts the hypothesis that the change in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
happens </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">because
God intends to bring it about</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
rather than being something that happens to God</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Thus,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">at
S</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God
intends to bring about the change. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Hence,
given </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
state </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">at
S</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">impossible</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that God does not change, since God can't fail to bring about what he
intends to bring about. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
just as in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
it is impossible that God does not change, the same is true and for
the same reasons in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Also, the state </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> is different from
the state S' in </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario4"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
4</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
in which God does not change</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and so he does not intend to change. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
if the concept of timelessness is coherent and state S</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario4"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
4</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is a timeless state, then</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
state is ontologically different from any initial state of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
actual world </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">posited
by defenders of the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">KCA+</SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
which – despite claims of timelessness – remains
ontologically indistinguishable </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
first temporal state, as far as one can tell. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">At
this point, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">omeone
might suggest that, in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
3</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
God exercised his libertarian free will at T(0) to bring about the
change, but </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
S</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
is not the case that he i</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ntend</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to change. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
leaving aside issues about the coherence of libertarian free will,
that is impossible for the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">same
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">reasons
I </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">gave
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">above</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
namely that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">since
the change under consideration is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
change </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
S to T(0)</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">was
not</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
decided at T(0)</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
or later</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
due to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">causal
priority </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
S</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Thus,
as </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">shown</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
above, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
S</SPAN></I></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
God intends to change</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given
S</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
necessarily </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">changes</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">conclusion
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
incompatible with </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
having libertarian free will at S, then that would not block the
conclusion I proved above</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– since the argument goes through just as well -</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so that would only mean that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
description is incompatible with </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
having libertarian free will at S, creating a new problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
account, rather than resolving one. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
the other hand, if that conclusion is compatible with God’s
having libertarian free will at S, the point remains that <I>given S</I>,
necessarily God changes, and so objection 1 fails. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Objection
2. </FONT></B><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">An
ontological difference</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
2</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given
the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">first
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">temporal
state of God</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in scenario 2</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it is not only necessary but </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">causally
necessary that the state changes, whereas given timeless state </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S
in </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></I><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><I><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
is necessary that God changes, but not causally necessary. </SPAN></FONT></I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Actually,
even if sometimes a state of affairs can determine but not causally
determine following states, this is </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the case of the state S
and </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
being </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
different state later</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">, since
</SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given S</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it is necessary and </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">causally
</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">necessary that God
changes</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
reason for that is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">he
change in God from the timeless state S to the first temporal state
T(0) is a change </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from the
causally first state of the world</SPAN></I><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and brought about by God</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
So, g</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">iven that what causes
God to change from the first state S is that God intends to change,
and nothing at T(0) or generally later than S could have caused a
change </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from S</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then God intends to change </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
S</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">, and that is causally
sufficient to bring about </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
God changes</SPAN></I><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>Objection
</I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>3</I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>.</I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></B><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">While
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
true that there is no ontological difference between </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A></B><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A></B><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the initial state in both scenarios is timeless, not temporal. The
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">improperly
described is</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A></B><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
rather than </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
1</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Assuming
for the sake of the argument that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
first state of God is somehow is properly called </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘timeless’</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> for some reason</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
seems that the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">same
is true of the first state of the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">universe</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in the following scenario</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
understanding that metaphysical time begins with the universe</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario5"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario 5:</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First state of
the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The universe exists
without a cause of its existence. Nothing else exists – there
may or may not be some things <I>in </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
universe, but nothing beyond the universe. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second state of
the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The universe has
changed and exists in its second state. Nothing else exists. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Just
as God exists without a cause in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
the universe</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">4</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
exists without a cause in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">And
j</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ust
as God changes from the first to the second state of the world in
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
the universe so changes in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">After
that, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">God
in those scenarios continues to change from one state of the world to
the next, and the same is true of the universe in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Also,
when </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
universe changes from its first state</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
its second state, there is no previous change, and no period during
which the universe remains unchanged. But that is </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>exactly</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
what happens in the case of God in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Given
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
above</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>t</I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">here
seems to be no sense of </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘quiescent’</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
or </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘changeless’</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in which the universe would fail to be quiescent or changeless in
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario5"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
5</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but God </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">wouldn’t</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
fail to be so in </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>scenario1</I></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
t</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">here
seems to be</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
no ontological difference that would justify denying that the first
state of God is temporal in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">wouldn’t</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
justify denying that the first state of the universe is temporal in
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Someone
might </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">suggest</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that in </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">scenario1</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">scenario
2</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
the change from the first to the second state of the world, including
the creation of the universe and </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">God’s</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
own change from timeless to temporal, takes place because God intends
to bring it about, whereas in </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">scenario
5</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
the cause of the change is not specified. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
that would be </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">unrelated
to the issue of changeless</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ness</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
quiescen</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ce</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
etc., </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in any case, we may as well further specify the scenario and add
that, in </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">scenario
5</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
the change from the first to the second state of the universe is
brought about by the </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">universe’s</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
conditions at its first state (including, of course, any </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">particles
if there </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
any, etc.</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">generally
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">universe’s</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
causal powers and/or causal powers of the particles</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
etc.</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">),
regardless of whether we put that in terms of substances and causal
powers</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and liabilities</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
or in terms of substances and laws, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or
in some other way</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Thus,
the universe, which has certain conditions in its first state, brings
about</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
change to its second state, just as God and his intent at the first
state brings about the change in </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">scenario1</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">We
may also stipulate </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
we so choose – though we </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">don’t</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
need to – </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">change
indeterministic in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">scenario
5</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so that given the first state of the universe, there is more than one
possible second state, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">only
one actually obtains</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">;
or we may alternatively</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
make it deterministic, etc. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
any case, t</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hat
would not make any difference in terms of changelessness</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
or </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">quiescence</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="timelessnessnocreation"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>2.1.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>4</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>.
Timelessness sans creation. </B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>More
on </B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>Craig’s</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>
description.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
this subsection, I will address a more elaborate description of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
alleged timelessness sans creation, which </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">gives
in one</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of his articles</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#beginningoftime"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#beginningoftime"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">r</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#beginningoftime"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">8</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#beginningoftime"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
that article</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
too</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
he c</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">laims
that sans creation, God is changeless. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
as I argued </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Timelessness changelessness and quiescence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">above</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
that claim would be false</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
M</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ore
precisely, in the account of creation </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
Craig </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">gives,
God is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">changeless,
but changes just as he or the universe would change in scenarios in
which there is no allegedly timeless state of affairs. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
addition, Craig claims that God is immobile. How can one make sense
of such a claim? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
makes sense, of course, to say that an object remains immobile </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
a while</SPAN></I></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so as time goes by, the object does not move with respect to some
frame of reference. But here the claim does not seem to be about
spatial movement, so </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">plausibly</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the claim is equivalent to the claim of changelessness, which has the
shortcomings already addressed.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Else,
Craig would have to explain what he means. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
aside, Craig gives an argument in support of the view that in his
changeless state, God is also timeless. A first and decisive problem
is that, as argued above, the state in question – i.e., the
first state of God – would </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></I></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
changeless. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">let’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
consider Craig’s argument in greater detail</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">He
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">claims</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that there is a possible world</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– say, W' -</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
which God refrains from creating anything, and claims that in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></I></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">case,
the state</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
question can be plausibly and coherently conceived of as </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“timeless”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Then,
he argues that similarly, the first state of God in the actual world
is timeless, since there is no intrinsic difference between the first
state at the actual world and the first state at W'; Craig also
claims that the initial segments of the actual world TW and the other
world W' would be identical. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
still not clear </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
me </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">what
Craig means by '</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘timeless’</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
- if anything -</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
leaving that aside, the claim that there is no intrinsic difference
between </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
two states is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><B>false</B></I></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
any relevant sense of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘intrinsic’</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
as the following argument shows: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let
S be the first state </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
the actual world </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">TW</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
according to Craig’s description. Then, God exists at S, and
nothing else</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
exists at S</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Let S' be the only state of the world W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
at which God exists alone. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
S, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">necessarily</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God
changes</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
as the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">analysis
of scenario 3 above</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
shows.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given
S',</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
is not the case that necessarily, God changes</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
as the analysis of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario 4"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
4</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
above shows</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Furthermore, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given
S', necessarily </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
not change</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">though
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
fact that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given
S', it’s not the case that God necessarily changes, is
sufficient </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
establish that the states </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
not intrinsically identical, as Craig claims. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Similar
considerations apply to causal necessity, also as argued above.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
for the claim that the initial segments would be identical, it is
also </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">false</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">since
any initial segment of TW on Craig’s account would contain the
first state S, which is a state at which God and only God exists, and</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
such that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">given</SPAN></I></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
such state S, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">necessarily
</SPAN></I></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God
changes</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
whereas that is not true of any initial segment of W'. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
if one assumes Craig’s account of creation, then given any
initial segment of the actual world, necessarily change occurs.
Whether which changes occur are determined by such initial state is
another matter, but there is no need to discuss it in this context,
since the objections succeed either way. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
light of the fact</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that given any initial segment of the actual world assuming Craig’s
account of creation, change </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">necessarily
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">follows,
whereas </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
not the case that given any initial segment of W', change </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">necessarily
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">follows,
we ought to conclude that Craig’s claim is not true, and the
initial segments are not identical. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Alternatively,
and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
make the point </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">shorter</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
any initial segment of TW contains S but not S', whereas any initial
segment of T' contains S' but not S. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Hence,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">they’re</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
not identical. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Similar
considerations can be made wit</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">h</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
regard to casual necessity, also as argued </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">earlier</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let’s
consider now two potential objections: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>Objection
</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>4</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>:
</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">T</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">he
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">difference
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
S and S' </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">described
above </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
not </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">intrinsic</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">whereas
the difference between T(0) </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><I><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A></I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
S </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><I><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A></I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
or </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><I><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A></I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
intrinsic. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
objection </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">claims
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
there is a difference between T(0) and S, but does not explain </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">how
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
is that difference, or what kind of difference that would be</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or why it would be intrinsic</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Saying that S is intrinsically like S' does not seem to address the
problem, because by the descriptions, S seems indistinguishable from
T(0)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but relevantly different from S' - even assuming S' is coherent,
which is not clear, either (e.g., how can we make sense of a person
who does not change at all, not even in his states of mind? It seems
he </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">wouldn’t</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
even think, feel, or </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">do
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">anything,
not even in his mind</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">;
if so, how can he be conscious?</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
But Let’s let that pass</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">).
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>Objection
</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>5</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>:
</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God’s
state of mind at S resembles more God’s state of mind at S'
than it resembles the state of mind </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
God </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
have at an initial temporal state, like the state T(0) presented in
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Leaving
aside that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
not at all clear that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
coherent to posit any state of mind – or any person</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
for that matter</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– in a purportedly timeless </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">changeless
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">state
like S', </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">o</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">bjection
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">5</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
makes </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">claim
of a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">difference
without any explanation as to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">how</SPAN></I></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></I></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
state of mind of God in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
S and T(0) </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
be different</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and further, different in a sense that</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is connected to the issue of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">time</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Given
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">S
and the first state at T(0) in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">appear
not to be </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">different
at all</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
based on the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">descriptions</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
argued above</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
-</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there appears to be no good reason to accept this objection, either</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
at least </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">until</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
a defender of a KCA+ can explain that difference </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">coherently.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="amorphous"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US">2.1.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US">5</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US">M</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US">etrically
amorphous </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US">time.
</SPAN></SPAN></B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">While
Craig rejects Swinburne and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Padgett’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
account of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">undifferentiated
time before creation </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#beginningoftime"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#beginningoftime"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#beginningoftime"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">8</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#beginningoftime"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
he contends that a variant of it </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
be compatible with God’s creation. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
someone might try to combine the KCA with an account like that,
instead of timelessness. However. t</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">he
account</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in question</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is obscure as well, and </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">those
defending it would have </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
burden of explaining what they mean</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
B</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ut
moreover, for that matter, if the account is coherent, they would
have to explain why God would be the only or most plausible candidate
for existing in this kind of amorphous time, rather than some weird
quantum thing, or </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">space,
or </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">something
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">along
those lines. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="conclusionconception"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>2</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>.2.
C</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>onclusions
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>based
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>on
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>the
analysis of the </B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>proposed
creator.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Based
on the analysis so far, in my assessment one ought to reject the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">KCA+</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
as defended by Craig</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or relevantly similar versions, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">since:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>a.</B>
It’s not clear that the idea of a timeless agent is coherent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>b.</B>
Even if a timeless agent is coherent, it’s not clear that the
idea of an agent that is timeless sans creation but temporal with
creation is coherent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>c.</B>
There are strong reasons to think that the creator proposed by Craig
actually would be an entity that begins to exist but has no cause of
his existence, contradicting premise 1 of the KCA. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>d</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">f
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
creator propose</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">d</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
by Craig for some reason can be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">properly</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
called </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘timeless’</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
sans creation, but temporal with it</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
– which seems </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">very</SPAN></I></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
implausible given the previous subsections -</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it seems </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
plausibly, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
same would apply to the universe if it had a first state, which on
its own </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">block
the KCA</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
as argued earlier. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
might be suggested that, perhaps, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">versions
of the KCA+ defended by other philosophers fare better.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
as long as they claim that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
is a personal creator that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
timeless sans creation and temporal with creation, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">make
any similar claims</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
seems that the same problems will likely aris</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
claim seem</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
to be </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
key part of the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">KCA+</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
at least in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">all</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
usual variants. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
any case, any defender of the KCA+ ought to explain what they mean
when they say that the creator is timeless without creation and
temporal with it, or by any alternative but also obscure claims they
make etc., and in particular, explain how it’s not the case
that God begins to exist in their model of creation. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">All
that said</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
will address the premises of the KCA and the arguments offered in
support of them in the rest of the essay</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and I will raise a number of objections that do not depend on any of
the previous ones. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="The first premise of the KCA"></A><A NAME="1pkca"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3.
The first premise of the KCA. </SPAN></B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
first premise of the KCA states: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">P1.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
this section, I will assess </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">first
</SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">the
meaning of the first premise</SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">and
</SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Arguments in support of the first premise"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">then
arguments given in </SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Arguments in support of the first premise"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">support
of it</SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="The meaning of begins to exist"></A><A NAME="1pkca2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>3.1.
</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>Beginn</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>ing
to exist and coming into existence. A</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>n
alternative</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B> principle. </B></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
his defense of the KCA, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">William
Lane Craig</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
assumes an understanding of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">‘begins</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">exist’</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">r</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">9</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
which I will call 'C-begin</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">-to-exist',
and which can be stated as follows</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">An
entity X C-begins to exist at t if and only if the following
conditions obtain: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">CBTE-i.
X exists at t, and it’s a tensed fact that X exists at t. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">CBTE-ii.
There are no states of the world at which X exists timelessly. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">CBTE-iii.
Either there is no t' < t such that X exists at t', or any t' <
t at which X existed is separated from t by an interval of positive
duration. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
that definition, X ranges over entities, and t over instants or
intervals of finite, non-zero duration. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Let’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">briefly </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">analyze
the conditions: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">CBTE-i.
X exists at t, and it’s a tensed fact that X exists at t. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Th</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">e
requirement that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">X's
existence at t be </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">a
tensed fact</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
in particular, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">rules
out </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
any objects </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">begin
to exist if a tenseless theory of time </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
true. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">It
seems odd </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">to
me </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
Craig would include tense in the definition of "begins to
exist", but he argues that, under a tenseless theory of time, a
universe with a first event did not begin to exist just as a meter
stick does not begin to exist just because it has a first
centimeter.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">r</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">9</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">That
argument</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> sounds odd </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">to
me </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">as well</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">,
since w</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">hile a meter stick does not </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">begin</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>
to exist</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> in virtue of having a first
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>centimeter</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">,
that's not relevant, since having a first centimeter is a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>spatial</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">,
not a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>temporal</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
claim, while </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">'</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">begins
to exist</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">'</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> -
at least, in this context – is clearly </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">a
claim </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">about time, not</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">space. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">In
fact, the stick in question</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> may properly
be said to have a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>beginning </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>in
space </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">because
it has</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
first centimeter</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
- at least if there is no demand for an arbitrarily precise spatial
beginning -</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">as
long as we – explicitly or by context – </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">pick
a direction in space to say which centimeter is first</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and which last, or which endpoint is the </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">spatial
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">beginning
and which one is the</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
spatial</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
end. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
similarly</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
even if a tenseless theory of time is true, the stick does have a
beginning</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>in
time</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">if
there is, for instance, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>first year at which it exists</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>
– </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at
least if there is no demand for an arbitrarily precise temporal
beginning, and a fuzzy beginning will do</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
-, and in the case of time, we needn't specifically pick the
direction, since </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
direction from past to future is already implicit in our language. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">T</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">hat
does not appear to be a difficulty for a temporal beginning of
existence under a timeless theory </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
time. </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Intuitively,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
say that the stick begins to exist </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">seems
to be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
same as to say that the stick has a temporal beginning, or a
beginning in time, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">then
it follows that the stick does begin to exist, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">regardless
of whether a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
tenseless theory of time</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is true. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">CBTE-</SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ii.
There are no states of the world at which X exists timelessly. </SPAN></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">This
is an </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">even
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">odd</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">er</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
condition</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">since
the term ‘timeless’ is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">extremely
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">odd
on its own</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
to say the least</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">It’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
not clear that it’s </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">even
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">being
used coherently by Craig</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
as I argued earlier</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">But
I've already addressed the matter of timelessness, so I will go no
further on this point</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and assume from now on and for the sake of the argument that the
concept of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">C-begins-to-exist</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
is a coherent concept. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">CBTE-</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">iii.
Either there is no t' < t such that X exists at t', or any t' <
t at which X existed is separated from t by an interval. </FONT></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">This
condition</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
together with the fact that t ranges over instants or intervals of
positive finite duration, </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">entails
that if there is a finite open interval (0,t] at the beginning of the
universe, then the universe began to exist. It’s a debatable
matter </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">whether
that respects our usual terminology, given that it’s arguable
whether the </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">metric
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of time
is </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">intrinsic</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
B</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ut I
will no go further on this</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">either,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">will</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
grant for the sake of the argument</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that the metric is intrinsic. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
addition to giving that definition</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
Craig </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">understands</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">'</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">begins
to exist</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">'</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
and 'comes into </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">being</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">'</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
as semantically identical. In fact, he actually defines 'begins to
exist' to mean the same as 'coming into being', and then defines
"comes into being". </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">r</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">9</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">I
don't think that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">captures
the meaning of 'comes into being' or 'comes into existence'</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
<BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
idea of coming into existence</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– or coming </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">into
being</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">;
I see no semantic difference between the two expressions –
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">seems
to imply a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">change</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
in the state of the world, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">plausibly
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">from
a state at some time t' at which some entity X does not exist, to a
later state at a time t > t', at which X does exist. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Granted</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
someone might </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">say</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that the idea of coming into existence does not require that the
previous state of the world at which X does not exist be </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I>temporal,
</I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and a
causally prior state suffices</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
even if it’s a timeless state. </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">For
the reasons I explained earlier, there are serious questions about
the coherence of a timeless state that is causally prior to a first
temporal state. We may assume here for the sake of the argument that
it is coherent in order to assess the first premise and some
variants, but it remains the case that I cannot </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">make
any sense </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
such a state, so it’s hard </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">for
me </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
make any intuitive assessment on that. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Still,
i</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n any
case, we may </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Let’s
leave </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
issue of the coherence of a timeless cause of a first temporal state
and </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">define
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I>temporally</I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
coming into existence, or coming into existence </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I>in
time</I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I>, </I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">as
follows: </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="comesintoexistence"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">An
entity X</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I>temporally comes </I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I>into
existence or into being</I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I> </I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at
t if and only if the following conditions obtain: </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">TCIE-i:
X exists at t. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">T</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">CIE-ii:
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">T</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">here
is a time t' < t such that X does not exist at t'</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">TCIE-iii:
There is no time t'' such that X exists at t'', and t' < t'' <
t. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
this context, X is also any entity, and t any instant or any temporal
interval of positive duration. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Given
those definitions, Let’s consider another potential principles,
as an alternative to premise 1. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="P1'"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">P1':
Ever</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ything
that </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">temporally
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">comes
int</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">o
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">existence
has a cause of its existence. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I
do not claim that the principle is true</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
I</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">t </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">may
well</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> be
challenged. </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I offer
it in order to compare it with the principle offered in premise 1 of
the KCA</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
since I find P1' </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
be </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a lot
more </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">intuitively
plausible</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
at least if one assumes that there might be a beginning of tim</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">e
– a matter I will consider in the next subsection. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="Arguments in support of the first premise"></A><A NAME="1pkca3"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3.2.
Arguments in support of the first premise.</SPAN></B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this section, I will consider arguments in support of the first
premise</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">given
by William Lane Craig in his defenses of the Kalam Cosmological
Argument</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepage182"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepage182"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>r</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepage182">1</A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>0</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepage182"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>]</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Nothing comes from nothing"></A><A NAME="1pkca4"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3.2.1.
Nothing comes from nothing. </SPAN></B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Craig
maintains</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"> that the
principle that nothing comes from nothing is intuitive and supports
the first premise. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
this context, h</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">e
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">points
out that</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
objects don't just pop</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">into
existence without a cause</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and provides examples by considering hypothetical scenarios in which
certain objects come into existence without a cause, and pointing out
that those scenarios are counterintuitive. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">the
examples he provides as obvious</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">ly</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
counterintuitive are all examples of objects </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">temporally
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">coming
into existence </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">without
a cause, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#comes into existence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">in
the sense in which</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#comes into existence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
I defined </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#comes into existence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">'</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#comes into existence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">temporally
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#comes into existence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">com</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#comes into existence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">es</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#comes into existence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
into existence'</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#comes into existence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#comes into existence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">earlier</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">It
is true that those</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
scenarios </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">are
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">also</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
examples of objects that would b</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">egin
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">to
exist without a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">cause,
and even </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">C-begin-to-exist</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
without a cause if a tensed theory of time is true</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
it </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">may
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">very
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">well</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">be
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">the
feature that makes it intuitive that those objects </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">probably
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">have
causes is that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">they
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">temporally
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">come
into existence, not that they begin to exis</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– o</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">r
maybe it’s some other feature. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">On
that note, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">there
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
evidence </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">against
the view that what makes it intuitive </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">–
at least </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">to
me</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">;
readers are invited to use their own intuitions</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
and check for themselves</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
of course</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">–
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
the objects in those hypothetical scenarios probably have causes is
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">not
</SPAN></B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">the
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">fact
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">those
objects</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">begin
to exist, or that they </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">C-</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">begins-to-exist</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
The evidence in question comes precisely from </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">considering
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">a
hypothetical scenario in which time begins to exist at </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">=</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">0</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
In that scenario, I find it particularly </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">counterintuitive</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">any</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
of the objects that exist at t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">=</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">0
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">would
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">have
efficient causes. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">As
for other, non-efficient causes, it’s less clear, but at least,
it’s not intuitive that they all </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">do
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">have
such causes. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Rather,
it’s intuitive that some of those objects do </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">not</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
have causes. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">So,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">after
considering that, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P1'"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">premise
1'</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">still
looks int</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">uitive</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">5</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
but </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">premise
1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">does
not</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">So,
on intuitive grounds, one may reject premise 1. <BR>Incidentally, the
defender of the KCA is appealing to intuitions in support of premise
1, and then arguing that time has a beginning as a means of
supporting premise 2. But if time has a beginning, then premise 1
becomes <I>counterintuitive. </I>So, if the appeal to intuitions in
the context of the KCA is acceptable – as the defender of the
KCA maintains -, then the KCA ought to be rejected – at least,
going by my intuitions. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Incidentally,
also, even Craig’s examples – like, say, a horse coming
into existence without a cause – are counterintuitive as
examples of what might <I>actually </I>happen. I do not see any good
reason to think it’s<I> metaphysically impossible </I>for any
of that to happen. At least, if conceivability is a guide to
metaphysical possibility, they seems conceivable. The reason that
those events do not <I>actually</I> happen may very well have to do
with the causal structure of the <I>actual</I> world, but not with
what’s metaphysically possible. Still, the other considerations
I’m giving are enough to reject the KCA on intuitive grounds,
regardless of the issue of metaphysical possibility. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Another alternative principle"></A><A NAME="1pkca5"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3.2.2.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
A</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">not</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">her
alternative</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
principle</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Af</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">ter
further considering my intuitions on the matter by contemplating more
scenarios</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
(but which </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">don’t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
involve a beginning of time)</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">it
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">also</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
seem</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
intuitive</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">ly
plausible</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
to me</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
after reflection, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
for every object O that exists at some time t, there is some time </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">u</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
< t, and some object </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">U</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
at </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">u</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
which is a cause of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">O’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
existence </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">at
t.</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">If
that is so</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
then </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">perhaps
it’s </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">the
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">fact
that E exists at t which makes it intuitive that there is a</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">n
object E' at some earlier time t' which is a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">cause
of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">E’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
existence </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">at
t</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and thus </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">there
are causes of E's existence </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">at
any time</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
t</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Given
that, we may consider the following alternative premise: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="P1''"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">P1'':
For every ob</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">ject
O that exists at t, there exists a time </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">u</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
< t, and some object </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">U</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
that exists at </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">u</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
such that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">U</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
at </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">u</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
is a cause of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">O’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
existence at t. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Here,
t and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">u</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
might be instants or finite intervals, and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">U</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
might or might not be O at a previous time. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">P1''
does seem intuitively plausible to me. But </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">P1''
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">would
be</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
a problem</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
for the defender of the KCA</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">since
P1'' i</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">s
in conflict with the second premise of the KCA</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
since it leads to an infinite past. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">That
said</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
P1'' is problematic, since some people have intuitions </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">against
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">infinite
regress. On that note, personally I used to have conflicting
intuitions on the matter, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">and
I used to think infinite regress was impossible, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">though</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
upon further reflection, now regress seems more intuitive to me than
a beginning. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions2"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions2"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">6</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions2"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
any case, if P2'' is rejected, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">if
</SPAN></B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">one
considers a scenario in which time has a beginning, then P1 appears
intuitively </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">very
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">implausible,
whereas </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P1'"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">premise
P1'</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
remains unaffected</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and appears still intuitively plausible</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– at least, at the actual world -</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
so </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">we’re</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
back to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">choosing
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">P1'
instead of P1. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">5</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">So,
based on those </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">c</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">onsiderations,
I would be inclined to tentatively accept P1'</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
as plausibly actually true</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
but reject P1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
at least as long as one considers the hypothesis that time had a
beginning as a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">live
option</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Still,
even the acceptance of P1' is tentative, since it’s not clear
that our intuitions are so reliable in cases involving all of time, a
small dense universe, etc</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">5</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and leaving aside the issue of metaphysical necessity. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Of
course, someone might say that</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
her</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
intuitions are different. I invite readers to make their own
assessments, but I would </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">suggest</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
that premise 1 is intuitive under the assumption that there is no
beginning of time, and counterintuitive under the assumption that
there is a beginning of time, whereas </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P1'"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">premise
1'</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
is intuitive either way</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– as always, as long as the premise is considered a claim about
the actual world</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
or similar worlds, etc.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">As
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">claim</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">s
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">of
metaphysical necessity</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– which is what Craig is claiming in the case of premise 1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">-</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
I see no </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">significant
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">intuitive
support for either </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">P1
or P1'</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
But still, even as a candidate for a metaphysically necessary
principle, P1' seems at least a lot more intuitively plausible</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
to me</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
than P1, even if </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">P1'
is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">not
particularly plausible, either. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="universesexception"></A><A NAME="1pkca6"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3.2.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Is
the </SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">univer</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">se
an unjustified exception?</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">A</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">nother
argument that Craig makes is that making an exception for the
universe would be ad-hoc.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">He
asks why wouldn't ordinary objects come into existence all around us</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
without causes</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
if universes could do that. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">But
l</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">eaving
aside for now the vagueness </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">and/or
obscurity (at best) </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">of
the word </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">‘universe’</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">if
</SPAN></B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">time
had a beginning, it may well be that the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">relevant
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">difference
is that the universe did </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">not</SPAN></B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">temporally
come into existence; in other words, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">assuming
</SPAN></B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
time had a beginning, the universe began to exist or even </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">C-began
to exist</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
but did not </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#comesintoexistence"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">temporally
come into existence.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">That
seems a lot more intuitive to me that Craig’s model in which
there is a beginning of time and yet what exists at the beginning has
efficient causes – not to mention that the coherence of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Craig’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
model is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">doubtful</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">At
this point, someone might object to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">the
previous considerations </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">and
suggest that my intuitions are unusual. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">5</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitions"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
particular, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">they
might raise questions like: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">‘Haven’</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
scientists continue</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">d
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">to
look for a cause of the Big Bang? Why </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">haven’t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">they
stop</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">ped</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
looking for causes?</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
Did and/or do they have different intuitions?</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">'
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, the fact is
that the Big Bang model does <I>not </I>provide an understanding of
the universe beyond a certain point in the past, where effects from
forces other than gravity should be taken into consideration, and
some scientists are trying to figure out the causes of a very hot,
dense, and small universe that existed about 13.7 billion years. But
those scientists seem to be asking the question: 'What caused the
state in which the universe was dense, small and hot?' (or similar
questions), on the understanding that <I>before</I> the first state
of the universe that can be reliably described with present-day
models, <I>there</I> <I>were</I> <I>other</I> states of the universe
that are beyond the descriptive capabilities of current scientific
understanding. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Moreover,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">while
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">it
may be that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">if
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">some
scientists </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">assess</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">our
universe</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
beg</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">a</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">n
to exist, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">in
some limited sense of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">‘universe’</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
would not entail an assumption that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">time</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">had
a beginning</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">so
they </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">might</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
look for causes earlier in time – for instance</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
the end, readers will make their own </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">intuitive
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">assessments
of course, but I </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">don’t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
think my intuiti</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">ve
assessments </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">with
regard to premise 1 and premise 1' </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">are
unusual</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
In any case, I invite readers to assess the matter by their own
intuitions: As I see it, p</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">remise
1 </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
intuitive under the assumption that time does </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">not</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
have a beginning, and very counterintuitive under the assumption that
time does have a beginning. Premise 1' </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
intuitive either way. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">That
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">said</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
there are difficulties with appeals to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">our
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">intuitions
about time and space in contexts such as the purported beginning of
time, such as: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">a.
There </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">may
be</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
significant differences between the intuitions of different people.
There </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">may
well </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">even
be differences between their pretheoretical intuitions</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
So, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">perhaps</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">at
least on some </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">the
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">issues</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
under discussion</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
there </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">may</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
not be one single human normal pretheoretical intuition</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
on a matter. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">b.
The intuitions of a person on some of these matters may well change
over time, as that person learns more about physics, cosmology,
philosophy, etc., and sometimes it’s difficult to figure out
what </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">a
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">person’s</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">pretheoretical
intuitions are</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">c.
There seems to be no particularly good reason to think that
pretheoretical intuitions are more reliable than intuitions developed
later</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– let alone more than</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
the intuitions of specialists, like cosmologists. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">d.
In any case, and plausibly more importantly, modern physics shows
that in unfamiliar environments like something very small or massive,
things are ‘weird’, and our intuitions about time, space
and related matters do not seem to work well. But the universe a long
time ago was both very small and massive. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Of
course, none of that represents a problem for use of our intuitions
in daily life or relevantly similar cases, but it raises questions
about their reliability in cases like those involved in the context
of discussions of the KCA, since in that context, those intuitions
are implicitly used in <I>all </I>of the universe. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">All
that said, <I><B>if </B></I>our intuitions are a reliable guide in
this case – as defenders of the KCA claim or assume -, then for
the reasons I explained above, I would be inclined to tentatively
accept <A CLASS="western" HREF="#P1'">premise </A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P1'">1'</A>,
but reject premise 1 unless one has good reason to believe that there
is no beginning of time. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Moreover,
if the premises are meant to be <I>metaphysically necessary</I><I>
–</I>which is what Craig maintains in the case of premise 1 -<I>,
</I>I do not see either premise 1 or premise 1' to be intuitively
plausible. At least, it seems perfectly conceivable that objects
temporally come into existence without a cause, so if conceivability
is a good guide to metaphysical possibility, then that gives us a
reason to think that premise 1' is not metaphysically necessary,
either. On the other hand, if conceivability is not such a guide, I
do not know how else to assess metaphysical possibility in those
particular cases. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Regardless,
leaving aside other possible worlds, the previous considerations are
enough to reject P1. Moreover, <I><B>if </B></I>for some reasons one
principle or another ought to be accepted as metaphysically necessary
– but that would have to be argued for -, I would say that P1'
is a lot more intuitively plausible than P1. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="1pkca7"></A><A NAME="Experimental confirmation"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3.2.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
Em</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">piri</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">cal
evidence. </SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
addition to the question of which principle or principles are
intuitive, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">another
question is whether empirical evidence supports the first premise.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Craig
claims that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
is so, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">and
points to a vast number of examples. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">a.
T</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">he
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">empirical
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">examples
that Craig give would also support </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P1''"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">P1''</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
which would contradict the second premise of the KCA. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">b</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
In any case, none of those examples favor </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">premise
1 </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P1'"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">over</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P1'"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
premise 1'</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
In fact, those examples are exactly what one would expect to see if
P1' is true, but time has a beginning and P1 is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">false.
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Also,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">premise
1' </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">does
not become less intuitive even under the assumption that time has a
beginning. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">c.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">E</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">mpirical
evidence is usually a very poor guide to metaphysical possibility.
For that matter, there is plenty of empirical evidence that, say,
people are not capable of flying like Superman. But I do not see any
good reason to think that it’s metaphysically impossible for
that to happen. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Granted,
someone might try to run a KCA claiming only that the first premise
is true, rather than necessarily true. But in that case, the
objections that I’m raising and which do not involve the issue
of metaphysical possibility are not affected. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
addition to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">all
of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">using
a similar argument from empirical evidence, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">we</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
may find support to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">hypotheses
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">such
as: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">EE1:
Actually, every intelligent being has at least one non-intelligent
cause. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">EE2:
Actually, every agent has at least one cause that is not an agent. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">EE3:
Actually, every personal being has at least one non-personal cause. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">And
so on. Granted, a defender of the <A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+">KCA</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+">+</A>
might give other arguments against those inferences, but that’s
a matter they would have to deal with when defending their proposed
cause of the universe – i.e., when trying to go from ‘The
universe has a cause of its existence’ to the conclusion that
the cause is God -, even if they managed to establish that the
premises of the KCA are correct, and even leaving aside the problems
with the concept of the agent that they propose. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Second Premise"></A><A NAME="2pkca1"></A><A NAME="2pkca"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>4</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>.
T</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>he
Seco</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>nd
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>Premise</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>
of the KCA.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The second
premise of the KCA states: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P2. The
universe began to exist. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition to </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
question of the meaning of </FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist">‘begins</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#The meaning of begins to exist"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to </FONT></A>exist’<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">, an
important issue is the meaning of </FONT>‘universe’<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">'.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig</FONT>
stipulates that <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in the second
premise of the KCA, the universe is the whole of material reality.</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3>[</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3>4</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3>]</FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaninguniverse">[</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaninguniverse"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>r</FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaninguniverse">1</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaninguniverse">1</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaninguniverse"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>]</FONT></SPAN></FONT></A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While it’s
not clear what ‘material’ means, assuming it’s
coherent and precise enough in the context of the KCA, it’s
clear enough that <I>at least </I>the “whole of material
reality” contains the (or a) multiverse if there is a
multiverse, and contains any <I>universes</I> older than <I>our</I>
universe, using here the word ‘universe’' in a sense in
which it’s sometimes used in astronomy and cosmology, but which
is more restrictive than the sense in which the word ‘universe’'
is used in the second premise of the KCA. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hence,
arguments showing that the universe, in that more restrictive sense
of the word ‘universe’, began to exist, would fail to
provide support for the second premise of the KCA. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I will come
back on this point later, when I assess Craig’s arguments
allegedly based on science. But first I will address other arguments,
made by Craig, Pruss, Koons and Waters. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="hilbert"></A><A NAME="Hilbert"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4.1.
Hilbert’s Hotel</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
first argument I will consider is the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">‘Hilbert</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hotel’</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
argument, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">defended
by Craig </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">intended
to show that an actual infinity is metaphysically impossible. Based
on that</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
conclusion</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig
argues</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>r</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2">2</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that
an infinite past is metaphysically impossible</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
since it would be an actual infinity. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepresent"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepresent"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>7</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepresent"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to Craig, the ‘Hilbert Hotel’ argument shows that an
actual infinity is counterintuitive, and based on that, he claims
that an actual infinity is plausibly metaphysically impossible –
apparently, according to Craig, it’s counterintuitive from the
perspective of some intuitions of metaphysical possibility. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
let’s assess the argument: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
Hilbert Hotel is a hotel with a denumerable number of rooms, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notehotel2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notehotel2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>8</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notehotel2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig
maintains</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
that it’s the actual application of the concept of infinity to
the real world, rather than the consideration of abstract sets, what
brings the counterintuitiveness of an infinity to </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">one’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
attention. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Of
course, a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>hotel </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">like
the one he proposes is counterintuitive, since (for example) we would
never be able to build it, we </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">wouldn’t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
be able to communicate with the rooms in real time as in the proposed
scenario, etc. However, all of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
counterintuitiveness seems to have everything to do with an infinite
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>hotel</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
the capabilities of humans </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">or</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
similar beings, etc., </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">and nothing to do
with an actual infinity</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, the alleged counterintuitiveness claimed by Craig
seems to result from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the words,
and disappears once the meaning of the words in the scenarios he
brings up are clarified. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario1hotel"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To see this, let’s consider
some of the scenarios Craig proposes as supporting his claim of
counterintuitiveness: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>First scenario: </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig presents a scenario in
which all of the rooms are occupied, and a new guest arrives.
According to him, somehow the fact that there are no more guests
after the arrival is a problem, or counterintuitive. However, that is
not the case, once it’s clear what one means by ‘more
guests’, for the following reasons: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>1.a.</B> In the sense of
cardinality, there are no more guests after the new guest arrived
than there were before. However, that merely means that there is a
bijection between the set of guests before the new arrival, and the
set of guests after the arrival, which not only not counterintuitive,
but is actually as clear as is the fact that there is a bijection
between the set of positive integers and the set of positive integers
plus zero. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>1.b.</B> On the other hand,
there are seem to be senses of ‘more guests’ in which
there are more guests after the new arrival than there were before,
like the sense that all of the previous guests are still there, and
there is also a guest who wasn’t there before. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In terms of sets, the set of
guests before the new guest arrives is strictly contained in the set
of guests after the new guest arrives in this case.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps, someone might object to
this second way of understanding the expression ‘more guests’,
since – for instance – this would not allow to conclude
that the set {1, 2} has more elements than the set {4}. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But that objection would miss the
point, which is that there is nothing problematic about the matter
once the meaning of the expression ‘more guests’ (and
related ones, like ‘identical number’, etc.) is
clarified. For that matter, we may consider another way of speaking
of numbers of elements, as follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>1.c. </B><B>Let’s</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
say that set A and set B have the same number of elements if and only
if the sets A\B</SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#minus"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#minus"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">9</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#minus"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and B\A have the same cardinality, and that A has more elements than
B if and only if the set A\B has greater cardinality than the set
B\A. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, is it
true that there are no more guests after a new guest arrives, in the
first scenario? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In the
sense of cardinality, it’s true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In the
senses considered in 1.b and 1.c, it’s false. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Once one
has clarified what the question is about, th</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
alleged counterintuitiveness disappears. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Now, Craig
also says that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">it’s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
counterintuitive that the new guest is accommodated even if all the
rooms were full. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">Of course, shifting
infinitely many guests from one room to the next would not be doable
for any human being, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">or for that matter
any </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">alien</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
from another planet</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">, etc., but </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">that’s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
not relevant</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">So, leaving
practical considerations aside, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">I do not
see </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">any</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
problem</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">s here for the metaphysical
possibility of the Hotel, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">since the fact
that the rooms were full does not change the fact that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">the
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">guests may</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">hypothetically be told to move to the
next room, etc</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">If the
shift is gradual, actually </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">the shift
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">will never end – </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">i.e.,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">there will always be one guest moving
from one room to another one</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">, or getting
ready to move, etc.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> -, but again, I
wonder what the problem is supposed to be – again, leaving
aside the obvious fact that neither we nor some aliens from another
planet will ever be in a position to built such a thing. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">However, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">in
any case, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>if</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">the issue of accommodating a new guest
were somehow </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">a problem for the
metaphysical possibility of th</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">e H</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">otel</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
– and quite frankly, I do not see </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">any
good reason at all to think that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">that
would be so</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> -</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">then that would be </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">a
problem</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> for the metaphysical possibility
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>of</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>Craig’s</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>hotel</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">but there appears to be no good reason
to think that it would be a problem for </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">actual
infinities in general</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">For
example, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> the hypothesis that</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">there are infinitely many galaxies</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
stars, planets, etc.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> - </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">which
is a</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">n alternative</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">considered seriously </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">in
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">present-day</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
science</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> – </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">is
not </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">affected. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Second
scenario: </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On this scenario, not just one
but denumberably infinitely many new guests arrive at the desk, and
the proprietor talks to them, etc.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As in the case of the first
scenario, Craig raises the issue of the number of guests, and the
fact that all of the rooms were full before the new guests arrived,
and yet all of the new guests are accommodated. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But that
does not work, either, for the following reasons: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>2.a.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">t m</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">ight</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
be that the meaning of the word 'desk' is such that it’s </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">not
coherent</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> to say that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>infinitely
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">many </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">show
up at the desk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">However,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>infinitely
many guests can arrive at the desk</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is not </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">is not a condition included in
the definition of the Hotel in question, so </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">if
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">the arrival of infinitely many new
guests turns out to be an </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">incoherent
scenario due to the meaning of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">the word
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">‘desk’</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">'</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
(and </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">‘guests’</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
implying something like humans, etc.)</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
that</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> does not tell us anything about the
metaphysical possibility of the Hotel. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>2.b.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT>On the other hand, if there is nothing in the meaning of the
word ‘desk’ and the other terms involved in the scenario
making that scenario incoherent, then there seems to be no problem. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of course, things like building
such a hotel, or communicating at arbitrarily fast speed with
infinitely many people, etc., are counterintuitive if someone were to
suggest that such a thing <I>actually</I> exists. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, as long as the beings
are sufficiently different from humans in terms of powers, etc., that
does not seem to be a problem for the metaphysical possibility of the
Hotel. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover, a<FONT COLOR="#000000">s
before, any </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">such </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">counterintuitiveness
is not a consequence of assuming an actual infinity, but of assuming
the infinite </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>hotel</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
that Craig and Sinclair describe</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">, so
even if that were a good objection to view that the Hotel is
metaphysically possible, that would not affect, say, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">the
hypothesis that there are infinitely many galaxies. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>2.c.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
The issue of the number of guests before and after the infinitely
many new guests arrive is handled as in the case of the scenario in
which one guest arrives, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">which was
</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1hotel">already </A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#scenario1hotel">considered.</A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2.d.
</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
issue of the accommodation of the infinitely many new guests even
though all of the rooms were already full is also handled as in the
case of the first scenario, only that in this case, the new guests
might never be all accommodated, if the shift is gradual. If </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it’s</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
instantaneous, then all are accommodated. In any case, </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">basically
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
same considerations given in the case of the first scenario apply
here as well. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Third
scenario: </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On this scenario, one guest
departs. According to Craig, it’s counterintuitive that there
is no one fewer guest. But there is no counterintuitiveness, as long
as one considers what is meant by ‘fewer’. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In other words, there are as many
guests as before in the sense of cardinality, but there is a sense in
which there were more guests before the departure, namely that all of
the guests that are in the hotel after the departure were in the
hotel before the departure, but there was also one guest before the
departure that is no longer in the hotel after she departed
(obviously). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In terms of sets, the set of
guests after the departure is strictly contained in the set of guests
before the departure. Once again, all of this is unproblematic, and
any issues related to the number of guests do not appear to be
counterintuitive at all as long as one keeps in mind what one means
by ‘more guests’, ‘fewer guest’, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Fourth scenario: </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Like the third scenario, but in
this case, all of the guests in the odd-numbered rooms check out. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As before, Craig claims that it’s
counterintuitive that there are no fewer people in the Hotel. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But as before, there is no such
counterintuitive as long as one keeps in mind what is meant by
‘fewer’. The previous considerations suffice. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Fifth scenario: </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This time, all of the guests in
all rooms except for #1, #2, and #3 leave, and even though the number
of guests that left is the same as the number of guests that left in
scenario 3, the number of remaining guests is only 3. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig seems to believe that such
argumentation is a powerful argument against the metaphysical
possibility of the Hotel, and as a result allegedly against the
metaphysical possibility of actual infinities. But any alleged
counterintuitiveness<I> with regard to the numbers </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">disappears
ones one considers what the words mean, and basic math. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">For
that matter, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the set of odd
natural numbers and the set of natural numbers have the same
cardinality, but </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">if N is the
set of natural numbers, A=N\{odd </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">natural
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">numbers}</SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#minus"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#minus"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">9</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#minus"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and B=N\N, then A is an infinite set, whereas B is the empty set.
That is not a problem</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> at all.
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As
for other features of the Hotel itself, </SPAN><I><B>if</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
any of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">them </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
a problem for the </SPAN><I>metaphysical possibility</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
of the Hotel – and I see no good reason to believe so</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
as explained earlier</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">; the
</SPAN><I>metaphysical possibility</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
of it does not seem in any way counterintuitive to me, at least as
long as the people involved are not human or similar to human in
power</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
etc. -, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">then there seems to
be no good reason to think that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is a problem for</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
actual infinities in general, or in </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">p</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">articular</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
– for example -</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, for
infinitely many galaxies, planets, stars, etc. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Given
the previous considerations, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
conclusion is that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘Hilbert</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Hotel’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
argument </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">fails to provide any
evidence against the</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
metaphysical possibility or even the existence of actual infinities. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
said, I would like to also comment on a particular claim he makes.
Despite the fact that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig
dist</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">inguishes between</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
three types of possibility in this context (and impossibility, and
necessity) - namely, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">strict
logical possibility, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">strict
logical possibility augmented by the meaning of terms within the
scope of modal operators, and metaphysical possibility –, and
he makes it clear that his claim is that actual infinities are
metaphysically impossible, he does claim that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
is a contradiction, apparently in subtracting equal quantifies from
equal quantities and have different numbers in the end. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In particular, he gives the
example that the set of even numbers E has an identical number of
elements as the set A of natural numbers greater than four, and yet
if we subtract E from the set of natural numbers N, we get an
infinite set, but if we subtract A from N, we get a set with only 3
elements. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
allegedly, it would be contradictory that identical numbers </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">from
an identical number and we did not get the same number. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But there is no contradiction,
because A and E (and N) have an identical number of elements in the
sense that there is a bijection between them. But there is no
contradiction in saying that there is a bijection between A and E
(and/or between each of them and N, for that matter), but there is no
bijection between N\A and N\E. In fact, not only is that not
contradictory, but it’s clearly true. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Nor is any of that
counterintuitive, for that matter. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
in short, there is nothing to the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“Hilbert
Hotel”</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
argument that Craig defends. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="reapers"></A><A NAME="2pkca3"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>4.2.
Grim</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B> r</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>eapers.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
‘grim reapers’ argument (or GR argument) has different
forms, and it might be given in support of the hypothesis that actual
infinities are impossible, and/or that infinite temporal regress is
impossible, and/or that time is necessarily discrete, among others. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#reapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
subsection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
I will focus on </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">one
of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Alexander
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Pruss’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">version</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">argument.
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>[</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>r</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>1</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>3</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>]</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
argument is as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Pruss:
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>r</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></B></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">"</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1.
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
there could be a backwards infinite sequence of events, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hilbert’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
Hotel would be possible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="prussp2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. </FONT></FONT>If
Hilbert’s Hotel were possible, the GR Paradox could happen.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
3. The GR Paradox cannot happen.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
4. Therefore, there cannot be a backwards infinite sequence of
events."</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Briefly,
the GR Paradox is as follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Fred is
alive at t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>0 </SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">–
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">which is </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">11.00
am </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">in</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">Pruss’s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
scenario -, and then, there is a grim reaper (say, GR</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">),
set to kill Fred at t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">=(t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>0</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">+(1/n)
seconds), if Fred is alive</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">, and to do
nothing if Fred is dead</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">. Fred cannot
survive a grim reaper attack</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">The
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">reasoning used </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">in
defense of premise 2 is that if the Hotel were possible, it would be
possible to make one reaper in each room (GR</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">in room #n), and </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">the
staff could </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">program it to act at
t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">=(t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>0</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">+(1/n)
seconds). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
what to make of the argument? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">First,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">let’s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">mirror the reasoning, and make an
argument against infinitely many </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>galaxies</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
for example, by making one </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">grim
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">reaper
per galaxy. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Should we
then conclude that infinitely many galaxies are not possible? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I
do not think so.</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
In fact, there are hypothetical scenarios that have infinitely many
galaxies and are consistent. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">For
example, there seems to be no contradiction in a scenario with
infinitely many galaxies but in which time is relative and in which
no entity has the power to send information from one galaxy to
another faster than the speed of light. In such a scenario, there</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
seems to be no way to derive the paradox, since in such a scenario,
no one would be able to make reapers who can check on Fred like that.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
someone might try to derive the paradox in some other way, but that
can be blocked by conditions on the causal structure of the
hypothetical scenario – or world if one accepts talk of
possible worlds. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover,
there are scientific, non-contradictory models involving infinitely
many galaxies. There seems to be no contradiction in adding the
stipulation that no entity has the power to send information from one
galaxy to another faster than the speed of light – which may be
a problem for theism, but not for the scenario’s immunity to
the GR paradox. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">if
infinitely many galaxies are possible, then clearly </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it’s</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
not possible that a contradiction obtains. </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">And
there is no good reason to believe they’re not possible. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
someone might posit a variant in which the infinitely many reapers
are in the same place, or </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">they’re</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
spaceless unembodied entities that send signals to one another</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
etc. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
the </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">key
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">point</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in this reasoning </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
that this would not be a problem for the possibility of infinitely
many </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>galaxies</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
but for the problem of infinitely many reapers </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>with
certain powers</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in a certain scenario. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">This
seems to work against </SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#prussp2">premise
2</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Pruss’s</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
argument </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">as
well, because </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it
seems it i</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s
not the case that if </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Hilbert’s</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
Hotel were possible, then a contradictory GR scenario would be
possible. Rather, if </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Hilbert’s</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
Hotel were (or is) possible, there would be </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">(</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
are</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">)</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
possible worlds/scenarios at which it exists, and then no
contradiction would arise </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">(</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">arises)</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in any of them, plausibly because of the causal structure of each of
the worlds/scenarios, which </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
vary</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">(or
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">varies)
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">from
one </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">possible
scenario </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
another</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
possible scenario. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">This
seems to block the argument for </SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#prussp2">premise
2</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, as well
as an argument directly from an infinite past to a contradictory GR
scenario</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
an infinite regress of past events is possible, then no paradox
arises in those possible scenarios, and what blocks the </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">formation
of the paradox</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">plausibly
varies</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
from scenario to scenario</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">At
this point</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
someone might </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">raise
the following </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">objection</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objectgr"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">‘<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>If
it’s metaph</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>ysically
impossible for there to be infinitely many galaxies, then that
explains why a contradictory GR scenario </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>involving
infinitely many GR – one per galaxy – </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>would
be prevented. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>But
if it were metaphysically possible for infinitely many galaxies to
exist, then a contradictory GR argument would seem to be possible.
Else, </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>w</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>hat
would prevent the formation of a contradictory </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>GR
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>scenario, in a </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>possible
world or </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>scenario with infinitely
many galaxies?</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>' </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="a"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Howev</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">er,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I
will argue that the objection is misguided, on the following grounds:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.
</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
question ‘what would prevent the formation of a contradictory
GR scenario in a possible world or scenario with infinitely many
galaxies?’ may be interpreted as: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="nocontra"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
A</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">question
about </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">general
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">necessarily
true</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
principle </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
somehow would in some sense ‘prevent’ the formation of
the GR scenario. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In that
case, one may point to the necessarily true principle that
contradictions are impossible; in particular, one does not need a
further principle that actual infinities are impossible, or that
infinitely many galaxies are impossible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="causal"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">A</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>causal </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">question,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">namely,
'</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
what would causally prevent a GR scenario from coming to be, in a
possible scenario with infinitely many galaxies</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">?'</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
that case, </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
answer is that </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>it</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>depends on the specific
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>possible </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>scenario
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>or world </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>in
question. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
the scenario </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
complete – like possible worlds, if one accepts talk of
possible worlds – or at least sufficiently specified, then in
different possible scenarios (or worlds)</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
are different causal structures of the scenario/world, and </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
some cases, </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">different
things would fail </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">if
some entity or entities attempted to </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">bring
about</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
the contradictory GR scenario, </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or
if each of them attempted to perform a single task that together
would be a contradiction, etc. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="b"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">b.
</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">T</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">he
question raised </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#objectgr">in
the objection</A></B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
may be mirrored by a similar question, in reply to the suggestion –
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">made
by the person arguing against actual infinities, or at least against
infinitely many galaxies – </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
an explanation as to why a contradictory GR scenario involving
infinitely many galaxies wouldn’t happen is that actual
infinities – or at least infinitely many galaxies – are
metaphysically impossible. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="mirror"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
mirror question would be: ‘What would prevent the formation of
infinitely many galaxies – not one at a time, of course, but in
block so to speak – in a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">possible</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
scenario in which there </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
finitely many objects?</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then, we
may consider options: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">b.1.</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
If the person positing the metaphysical impossibility of actual
infinities, or at least of infinitely many galaxies, responds that
what would prevent the formation of infinitely many galaxies </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">possible
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
in which there aren’t infinitely many </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objects</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
that actual infinities – or at least infinitely many galaxies –
are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">metaphysically
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">impossible,
then that would not seem any stronger than a reply to the original
question </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#objectgr"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
the objection </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#nocontra">says that
what would prevent the formation of a contradictory GR scenario in a
possible world or scenario with infinitely many galaxies is that
contradictions are not possible.</A></B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">More
precisely, there is of course a clear difference </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
the two replies</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
we do know contradictions are impossible, but we do not know that
infinities are, or that infinitely many galaxies are. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
and leaving that aside, the two replies are similar in that, in both
cases, the person answering the question is appealing to a principle
they hold is necessarily true – </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
one case, the impossibility of contradictions; in the other, the
[alleged] impossibility of an actual infinity, or of infinitely many
galaxies -, as an answer to a question as to what would prevent </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
formation of a certain scenario from a previously given scenario. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">This
of course generalizes to other replies </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#mirror">the mirror
question</A></B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that are based on some [allegedly] necessarily true principle, as an
answer to the question ‘</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">What
would prevent the formation of infinitely many galaxies – not
one at a time, of course, but in block so to speak – in a
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">possible</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
scenario in which there </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
finitely many objects?'</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Such
replies are also appeals to some [allegedly] metaphysically true
principle as </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">explaining
what blocks </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
a formation, and as such they seem no stronger than the appeal to the
metaphysically true principle that contradictions are impossible as a
reply to the question of why a contradictory GR scenario would not be
formed in a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">possible
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">scenario
in which there are infinitely many galaxies, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
infinitely many galaxies were possible. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">b.2.
</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
the person positing the metaphysical impossibility of actual
infinities, or at least of infinitely many galaxies, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">gives
a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">causal
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">answer
as to what would prevent the formation of infinitely many galaxies in
a possible scenario in which there are finitely many objects, then
that does not seem to be any better than </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><B><A CLASS="western" HREF="#causal">the
causal reply above</A></B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">To
be more precise, I think point </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#a"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a</B></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#a">.</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
above suffices to show that the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#objectgr">objection</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is misguided, but </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#b"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b.</B></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is a way of showing that the person arguing against an actual
infinity is at least in no better position. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="aristoteliandiscreteness"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>4.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>3</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>.
</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>Aristotelian-d</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>isc</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>rete
time</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>, </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>infinite
regress</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B> and more grim reapers</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="discretetime2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Pruss also distinguishes between
the following two types of discrete time: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="rigiddiscrete1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. Time is rigidly discrete if
there necessarily is a minimum temporal unit. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2.
Time is discrete in an Aristotelian sense if there are in fact
finitely many moments of time</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
between any two giv</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">en
times in the finite past</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
but each interval can be subdivided infinitely many times.</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>[</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>r</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>1</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>3</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>]</B></U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>[</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>r</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss3">1</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>4</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>]</U></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Then,
he </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">gives
a</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
argument against infinite regress if time is discrete in an
Aristotelian sense. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">reasoning is basically </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">as
follows: </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">if there were an
infinite sequence of past events D(-n), for all natural n, such that
D(-n) precedes D(-m) if n>m, then D(-n) could cause something at
time </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">t</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">0</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">+</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1/n</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
for some t</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">0</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
contradicting</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> the
hypothesis that time is discrete in </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#discretetime2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">an</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#discretetime2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
Aristotelian sense</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
According to Pruss, there is no reason to rule out all of those
happening together. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
the difficulty seems to be the same</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
as in the </SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#reapers">previous
case</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">. </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
fact, w</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">h</SPAN></FONT>at
Pruss seems to be doing is going from the finite to the infinite
case, including in the infinite case scenario some entity or entities
with the causal power to bring about all of those things at time
t<SUB>0</SUB>+1/n, and who exercise such powers successfully. But<I>
</I><I>that’s</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> </SPAN><I>precisely</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><I>not</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> what happens in a
consistent scenario in which </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">time
is</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> discrete in </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">an</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
Aristotelian sense, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and in
which there is infinite temporal regress. </SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">For
that matter, one might make an argument against infinitely many
galaxies if time is discrete in the Aristotelian sense</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
– programming one reaper per galaxy -</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
but that fails as the argument </SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#reapers">above</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
fails</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">At
this point, someone might ask questions like. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>a. </B>What would prevent that
scenario from happening, if an infinite temporal regress is possible?
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>b.</B> What would prevent that
scenario from happening, if infinitely many rooms, or galaxies, are
possible? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
the question is about some general metaphysical principle, we know
that contradictory states cannot come to exist. If it’s a
causal question, we may properly ask, in the case of a specific
hypothetical phenomena H, what would causally prevent H from
happening. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
if the hypothetical scenario is sufficiently determined – like
a possible world, presumably -, then different possible scenarios
have different causal structures. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
essentially, the reply to this kind of objections is along the same
lines as the reply to the </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#objectgr"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">objection</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in the </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#2pkca3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">immediately
previous subsection</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="placers"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4.</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>.
Grim </B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>placers
and/or grim signalers.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this subsection, I will address a variant of the argument from grim
reapers, defended by Robert Koons</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>r</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
variant, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">each</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
grim reaper</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">or
rather grim placer, given </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">his</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
job</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">check</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
whether there is some Fred particle at </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
specified </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">location,
and if there </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">isn’t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">he
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">place</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
one at some specific location. Otherwise, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">he
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">keep</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
the particle where it is. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to Koons, his argument shows that time is not dense,</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">furthermore</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that infinite temporal
regress is not possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="possibleplacer"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4.4.1.
Possibility of a grim placer. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Among
other hypotheses, the argument assumes the following one: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">1. There is
a region R of duration d </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">(for some
finite d>0) </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">in a possible world W,
and a grim placer G</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>d</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
such that GP</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>d</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
has the intrinsic power and disposition to do as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">a. If there
is no Fred particle at any distance y<d from a fixed plane P, then
G</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>d</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
creates and places a Fred particle at a designated location exactly d
meters from P. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">b.
Otherwise, GP</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>d</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
keeps any Fred particle that is closer to plane P in its position</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
and does nothing more. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It’s
not clear to me what criterion or criteria Koons is using, as a guide
to metaphysical possibility, in order to assert that one such
scenario is possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
might be argued that it’s intuitively clear that such entities
are possible. But for that matter, it seems no less intuitively clear
to me that it’s possible that no agent exists, so if I were to
accept that criterion, that alone would make Koons’s premise no
stronger than an intuitive assessment that there is no necessary
being. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">In
any case, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let’s
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">grant</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleplacer"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleplacer"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">for
the sake of the argument.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="compresstime"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4.</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>.2.
Comp</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>ressibility
of spacetime. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Another
assumption of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">Koons’s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">argument – though this one is an
assumption for a</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>reductio
– </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">may</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
be stated as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. If there is some object A with
an intrinsic property Q in a region R of finite duration e in a
possible world W, then: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. There is a function f from the
parts of R to the parts of some region R' of some possible world W',
such that f is topology-preserving and compresses time and space by
half. For instance, if the duration of R is e, the duration of R' is
e/2</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. There is a counterpart A' of A
and a counterpart Q' of Q, such that A' intrinsically has property Q'
in R'. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Hypothesis
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">2 is used for a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>reductio</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
against temporal density. Koons argues that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">hypothesis
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">2. is reasonable under the</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">assumption that time is dense. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
there is an intrinsic metric of time, it’s not clear to me that
no properties are incompressible, no processes require at least some
amount of time, etc.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
Let’s grant</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">hypothesis</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#compresstime"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">as
well</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
for the sake of the argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="infinitary"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4.</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>.3.
Infinita</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>ry
patchwork </B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>and
binary patchwork. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
key principle of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
argument is what he calls </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">“infinitary
patchwork”</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>r</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
(or IP), and which can be </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">stated</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
as follows: </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#atheism"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[10]</FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let’s
suppose the following conditions obtain: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="IP"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">IP(1): </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>W
= </B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">{W</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">}
is a countable series of possible worlds, and </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>R=</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">{R</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">},
is a countable series of regions of those worlds, such that for all
n, R</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is a region of W</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">IP(2): f is
a function from </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>R
</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">into
the class</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteset"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteset">1</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteset">1</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteset"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of spatio-temporal regions of some world W, such that f preserves the
metric and topological structure of each of the R</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">n</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and such that, if n≠m, then f(R</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">n</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">)
does not overlap f(R</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">m</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">).
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then,
there is a possible world W’, and an isomorphism g from the
spatio-temporal regions of W to the spatio-temporal regions of W’,
such that the following obtains: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">IP(C): The
part of W</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
within R</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is exactly like the part of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">W’</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
within g(f(R</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">).
</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>r</U></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>5</U></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Koons
also proposes b</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">inary
patchwork, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">which
is </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
binary counterpart of </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">infinitary
patchwork</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
In other words, in the case of binary patchwork, only two regions are
patched. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">H</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">ere</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">two key questions are: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>i</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>.</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
S</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">hould
we accept </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">both</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
principle</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">?
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>ii</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>.</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
we do, does </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
conclusion follow? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
address </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>ii</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
first</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
Koons points out when he considers </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">what
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">he
calls </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">“The
Amazing Vanishing Particle”</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">his
argument requires that each </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">grim
placer – or grim signaler, as he renames them – have the
power to send a signal to a successor, and the power to receive a
signal from a predecessor. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
particular, even though the placers or signalers have only powers
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>intrinsic
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
each interval, they</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">have
the power to send a signal </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>beyond
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">their
own interval</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Without
that power, the argument would fail, as the following scenario shows:
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. There is
a sequence of temporal intervals {I</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">n</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">=(t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">n+1</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">n</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]}</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
for all natural numbers n. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">2. Each
interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
h</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">a</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">s length
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">d</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">*2</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>-n</SUP></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">3. During
interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
or at least during the last portion of it, there is a Fred particle
at the designated position</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">d</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">*2</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>-n</SUP></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>
</SUP></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">meters from the designated plane
P. There is no other Fred particle during interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">4. During
interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
there is a grim placer #n, GP</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">not
contradictory, and is </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">consistent
with </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
premises, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">as
long as the powers do not involved sending signals </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>beyond
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
interval in which they’re exercised</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
the scenarios to be patched were like that, there would be no
contradiction. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
key </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">assumption</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
Koons’s argument </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
that the powers of the grim </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">placers
of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">signalers,
even if intrinsic to each spatio-temporal region in the sense defined
by Koons, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">include</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
powers to act </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>beyond
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">such
spatio-temporal region. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Now,
Koons says that there is no action at a distance, since the intervals
may be contiguous, like in the previous example I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">=(t</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n+1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,t</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">].
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it
seems that </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">wouldn’t</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">be
enough, as the following example shows: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Let’s</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
say that grim signaler#n, or GS</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
exists in I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">=(t</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n+1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,t</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">],
whose le</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ngth
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">*2</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">-n</SPAN></FONT></SUP></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></SUP></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Let’s</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
further stipulate that GS</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">has
the power to send signals that persist within I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
but not beyond her interval. At any time in I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n-1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
it is not the case that the signal sent by GS</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">persists,
so there is nothing that GS</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n-1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
who only acts in I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n-1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">=(t</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">t</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n-1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]
might detect</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
is, of course, unless </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n-1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">has
the power to detect signals that exist at exactly </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">t</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or
earlier, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">but
the problem is that </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
use of infinitary patchwork does not entail that </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n-1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>e</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>ven
e</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>xist</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>s</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">t</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
or earlier. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons’</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
argument requires </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that
each grim </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">signaler</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
has a power that, while intrinsic to her interval, involves sending a
signal that will </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>persist
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">for
some time – even if a very small time, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
even if the amount of time may vary from possible world to possible
world </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">–
into </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">temporally
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>later</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
interval. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet,
even </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
not be enough. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On that
note, one of the objections that Koons considers is that powers and
dispositions can fail. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
order to reject this objection, Koons assumes that whether a
disposition is followed and whether the exercise of a power is
successful is a matter </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>intrinsic
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
the spatiotemporal region in which the </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">power
in question is exercised. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Koons’</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
argument </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">uses</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
not only that each grim signaler has the intrinsic power in her
interval to send a signal that endures for at least some time into
the next interval, but also that she exercises that power
successfully, and that </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">successful
exercise </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
that power </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
a matter intrinsic to her </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">own
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">spatio-temporal
region, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>even
if it involves the </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>persistence
of </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>her
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>signal</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>
in another spatio-temporal region. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="conditions"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
fact, Koons’s </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">argument
assumes </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>at
least</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
the following conditions</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">When
applying binary or infinitary patchwork, o</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ne
may </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>stipulate
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
the powers intrinsic to a </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">spatio-temporal
region </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">R</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">whose
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">temporal
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">component
is an interval </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
i</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">nvolve
powers to send signals that </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">exist
in a region </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">R</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
whose temporal component is an interval </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that does not overlap with </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
later than </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">provided
that </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
temporal distance between </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
is zero </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">(like
(a, b] and (b, c], or [a, b) and [b, c)). </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b.
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
when applying binary or infinitary patchwork, o</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ne
may stipulate t</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">hat
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
matter of whether </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">an
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">exercise
of </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">such</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
powers is </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">successful
is also </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
matter </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>intrinsic
only to the interval at which they were exercise</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>d,
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">even
in </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">cases
in which the stipulation described in condition </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">above
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
also made</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">C</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">onditions
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">imply
that </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">when
both </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">stipulations
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">described
in</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
are made, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
matter of whether a signal – </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">whether
the signal is a Fred particle or something else – </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">exists
at some time in a spatio-temporal region </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">R</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
a matter </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>intrinsic
to a spatio-temporal region </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">R</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that
is disjoint from </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">R</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>.
</I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">H</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">owever,
under that very weird notion of intrinsicality, there is no good
reason to accept either of the patchwork principles. Such principles
are </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>extremely</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
counterintuitive </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">upon
reflection, and </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">after
Koons’s conditions are analyzed as above, and there is no
reason to </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">reject
our intuitions on the matter and come to believe that the principles
are true. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="binary"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>4.4.4.
Binary </B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>patchwork
suffices. </B></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Let’s
grant in this subsection for the sake of the argument that the
principles of infinitary and binary patchwork are true –
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">including
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">conditio</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ns
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
even though as I explained in the previous subsection, there seems to
be no good reason to believe that they are true. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Given
the kind of powers and dispositions that Koons patches – as
seen in the previous sections -, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">infinitary
patchwork is not required to conclude that temporal density is
metaphysically impossible. In fact, binary patchwork suffices to
establish that for every two non-overlapping temporal intervals </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
temporal distance between them is non-zero. But that rules out
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">temporal
density, because if time were dense, the temporal distance between
some temporal intervals like (a, b] and (b, c], or between [a, b) and
[b, c) would be zero. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, let’s
prove from binary patchwork that there are no temporal intervals such
that the temporal distance between them is zero: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Let’s</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">stipulate
the following conditions:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>A</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
T</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">here
are two </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">temporal
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">intervals
(a, b] and (b, c], in world W</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
In </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">(a,
b], there is one entity E</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">with
the power and disposition to send a signal of type T</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
into </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">(b,
c]. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>B:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
In </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">W</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">E</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">exercises
her power successfully. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">C:
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
another world </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">W</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there are also intervals (a, b] and (b, c], and there is no signal of
type </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">T</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
in any of those two temporal intervals, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
no entity receiving or sending any signals. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>D:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
All of the powers and dispositions in those intervals are intrinsic
to those intervals, and whether the exercise </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
powers </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
successful is also a matter intrinsic to the intervals in which </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
powers are exercised</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">We
may pick the spatial intervals to cover all of space at those times,
or some other stipulation of our choosing; there are many options. </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I
will leave the spatial condition aside to simplify, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">but
nothing hinges on that. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Also,
we may pick temporal intervals that are open into the future and
closed into the past instead of open into the past and closed into
the future. That makes no relevant difference, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">either.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
by binary patchwork, we patch interval (a, b] from </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">W</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
interval (b, c] from </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">W</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
into some world </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">W</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">3</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">W</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">3</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
there is no signal of type </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">T</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at
any time i</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n
(b, c], </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">since
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
is no such signal in </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">W</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">nd
W</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">3</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
an exact duplicate of </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">W</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
inter</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">val
(b, c]. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Similarly,
in </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">W</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">3
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
is i</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">(a,
b] one entity E</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">with
the power and disposition to send a signal of type T</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
into </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">(b,
c], </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>and
who exercises her power successfully in </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">W</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">3
</SPAN></I></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">as
well. But given that the power was exercised </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>successfully</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
there is a </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">signal
of type </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">T</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at
least at some time in</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
(b, c] </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">W</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">3.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That is a
contradiction. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A potential
objection would be that even if there is no signal of type T<SUB>1</SUB>
at any time in (b, c] in W<SUB>2 </SUB>and even if W<SUB>3 </SUB> is
an exact duplicate of W<SUB>2 </SUB>in interval (b, c], it is
possible that there are signals of such type in (b, c] in W<SUB>3</SUB>,
and that the condition of exact duplication should not be understood
as ruling out other entities. But such an objection would seem to use
the expression ‘exact duplication’ in a way that does not
seem to resemble the meaning of the words, and there appears to be no
good reason to accept a modified principle based on the usage of
‘exact duplication’ suggested in this objection, either.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
Still, I will give an alternative argument to the conclusion that
binary patchwork suffices to establish that time is not possibly
dense:</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
Let’s stipulate that there are two intervals (a, b] and (b, c],
in world W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>.
In (a, b], there is one entity E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">11
</FONT></SUB>with the power and disposition to send a signal of type
T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB> into (b,
c]l; no signal of type T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">2</FONT></SUB>
is sent. In (b, c], there are two entities, E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">12</FONT></SUB>
and E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">13</FONT></SUB>, with
the following powers and dispositions:</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
i. E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">12</FONT></SUB> checks
whether a signal of type T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>
reaches (b, c]. If it does, then E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">12</FONT></SUB>
sends a signal of type T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>
into a later interval. Else, she does nothing</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
ii. E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">13</FONT></SUB> checks
whether a signal of type T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">2</FONT></SUB>
reaches (b, c]. If it does, then E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">13</FONT></SUB><I>
prevents</I> any signals of type T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>
from reaching any later interval. Else, she sends a signal of type T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>
into a later interval.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
In W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>, both
E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">12</FONT></SUB> and E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">13</FONT></SUB>
exercise their powers and dispositions successfully: E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">12</FONT></SUB>
detects a signal of type T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>,
and sends a signal of type T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>
into a later interval, whereas E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">13</FONT></SUB>
detects nothing and so, according to her dispositions, she also sends
a signal of type T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>
into a later interval.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
On the other hand, in world W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">2</FONT></SUB>,
in (a, b] there is one entity E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">21</FONT></SUB>
with the power and disposition to send<I> two signals</I> into (b,
c]: one of type T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>,
and one of type T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">2</FONT></SUB>.
There are no entities checking for, sending or blocking such signals
in (b, c] in W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">2</FONT></SUB>.
Moreover, E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">21</FONT></SUB>
exercises her powers and dispositions successfully in W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">2</FONT></SUB>.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
All of the powers and dispositions involved in the scenario,<I> as
well as whether they’re successfully exercised,</I> are
intrinsic to the intervals in which the powers and dispositions are
exercised, regardless of whether they involve making signals persist
into another interval. This stipulation mirrors exactly Koons’
stipulation that the powers and dispositions of the GR in his
argument,<I> as well as whether they’re successfully exercised</I>,
are intrinsic to the intervals in which the powers and dispositions
are exercised, in a situation in which his grim reapers have the
power to send signals into a later interval.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
Then, just by binary patchwork, we can paste (a, b] from world W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">2</FONT></SUB>
with (b, c] from world W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>.
In other words, by binary patchwork we obtain a world W' such that
E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">21</FONT></SUB> exercises
her powers and dispositions successfully in (a, b] W', and so do E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">12</FONT></SUB>
and E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">13</FONT></SUB> in (b,
c], which is a contradiction, since that would involve that a signal
of type T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB> is
successfully sent into a later interval, and no such signal is
reaches any later interval.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A potential
objection would be that arguably, there is a problem with the
conditions in the interval (b, c] in W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">2</FONT></SUB>,
since the two entities E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">12</FONT></SUB>
and E<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">13</FONT></SUB> cannot
jointly exercise their powers in a world at which both a T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>
and a T<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">2</FONT></SUB>
signal reach the interval. However, that does not seem to be a
problem if one assumes that powers can fail, as Koons seems to. One
may posit that they both have the powers in question, and powers
possibly fail. So, it seems to me that the objection fails.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
Still, I will give another alternative argument in support of the
conclusion that binary patchwork suffices to establish that time is
not possibly dense:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
Let’s stipulate that there are two intervals (a, b] and (b,
c=b+1 hour], in world W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>.
In (a, b], there is one entity Lex<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">
</FONT></SUB>with the power and disposition to send a kryptonite
signal into (b, c].
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
In W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>, Lex
exercises his power and disposition successfully, sending a
kryptonite signal into (b, c]</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
On the other hand, in world W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">2</FONT></SUB>,
in (b, c] there is one entity Clark with the power and disposition to
fly faster than a speeding bullet for all of the duration of the
interval, that is for an hour. Clark, however, is vulnerable to
kryptonite signals. Any kryptonite signal will kill him, and his
death will happen in less than a second, regardless of how long the
signal lasts for. This vulnerability to Kryptonite is one of Clark’s
intrinsic properties in (b, c]. Clark exercises his powers and
dispositions successfully in W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">2</FONT></SUB>.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
All of the powers and dispositions involved in the scenario –
and generally other properties, like liabilities -,<I> as well as
whether they’re successfully exercised,</I> are intrinsic to
the intervals in which the powers and dispositions are exercised,
regardless of whether they involve making signals persist into
another interval. This stipulation mirrors exactly Koons’
stipulation that the powers and dispositions of the GR in his
argument, <I>as well as whether they’re successfully exercised</I>,
are intrinsic to the intervals in which the powers and dispositions
are exercised, in a situation in which his grim reapers have the
power to send signals into a later interval.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
Then, just by binary patchwork, we can paste (a, b] from world W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">1</FONT></SUB>
with (b, c] from world W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">2</FONT></SUB>,
into some other world W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">3</FONT></SUB>.
Then, in W<SUB><FONT SIZE=3 STYLE="font-size: 13pt">3</FONT></SUB>,
Clark flies faster than a speeding bullet for an entire hour in (b,
c] - i.e., for the whole duration of the interval -, but on the other
hand, Clark dies in no more than a second into (b, c] due to the
kryptonite signal successfully sent by Lex. But that is impossible.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
In this construction, if required, we may stipulate that in the
beginning of (b, c], Clark is located in a particular place, and that
the kryptonite signal reaches that particular place.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
So, the conclusion is that binary patchwork suffices to show that any
two temporal intervals are at a positive temporal distance from one
another, and that time is not dense.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
A potential objection might hold that perhaps when using the patching
principles, powers and dispositions and their successful exercise can
be intrinsic to spatiotemporal regions, but some other properties,
like liabilities, cannot, blocking the kryptonite argument. But if
that is what the principles hold, then why should anyone accept
<I>ad-hoc</I> patching principles like that?
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That aside,
and for the reasons given in the <A CLASS="western" HREF="#id.xvir7l">previous</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#id.xvir7l">
</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#id.xvir7l">subsection</A>, one should
not accept the patchwork principles, even leaving aside the arguments
given in this subsection. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="infinite"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>4.4.5.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>I</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>nfinite
past, undefeated.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Let</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
us now </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">grant
again Koons’s assumptions for the sake of the argument, let’s
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">take
into consideration the conclusions – from binary patchwork, as
explained in </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#binary">th</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#binary">e
previous </A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#binary">subsection</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
– that time is not possibly dense, and </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>also</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that there is a positive temporal distance between any two given
temporal intervals such that one precedes the other, and let’s
see why the </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">conclusion</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that an infinite past is impossible, is blocked: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Let’s
suppose that </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
are </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>infinitely</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
many past temporal intervals of positive duration {I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">},
for all natural n, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">such
that </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n+1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
precedes I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n.</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Th</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">e
infimum of the distances between</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
pairs of </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">intervals
may or may not be zero, but in any case, the distance between </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>each
two intervals</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
is always positive, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
thus</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions">conditions
</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions">b</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
not enough to specify that the signal persists from one of those
intervals into the next, blocking Koons’s argument. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">t
might be objected that Koons’s assumptions are not limited to
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions">conditions
</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions">b</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>,
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
in particular, that the condition of zero distanc</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">e
can be replaced by another condition</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">More
precisely, it might be </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">posited</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that Koons’s conditions are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">something
like</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="conditionsalt"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a’</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">When
applying binary or infinitary patchwork, o</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ne
may </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>stipulate
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
the powers intrinsic to a </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">spatio-temporal
region </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">R</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">whose
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">temporal
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">component
is an interval </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
i</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">nvolve
powers to send signals that </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">exist
in a region </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">R</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
whose temporal component is an interval </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that does not overlap with </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2
</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
later than </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>,
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">provided
that there is no temporal interval between</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
is</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">disjoint
from at least one of them </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[alternatively:
from both of them]. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b’</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
when applying binary or infinitary patchwork, o</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ne
may stipulate t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hat
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
matter of whether </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">an
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">exercise
of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
powers is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">successful
is also </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
matter </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">intrinsic
only to the interval at which they were exercise</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">d,
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">even
in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cases
in which the stipulation described in condition </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a’</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">above
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
also made</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">T</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">he
problem is that in that case, binary patchwork alone entails a
contradiction </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">regardless
of whether the past is finite, whether time is dense, etc., </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
the following argument shows: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>A.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
By binary patchwork, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#binary">as
in the previous subsection</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we establish that the temporal distance between two temporal
intervals is not zero. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>B.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Using</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Koons’s argument against temporal density, we establish that
there cannot be infinitely many temporal intervals between two given
intervals. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>C.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Using
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>B
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
A</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we pick two temporal intervals </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
are at non-zero distance, but </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
that there is no other temporal interval between them.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>D.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
Applying </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditionsalt">the
alternative conditions</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and using an argument like that given </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#binary">in
the previous </A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#binary">subsection</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
but without the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">stipulation</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
that the temporal distance between the two intervals is zero, we get
a contradiction.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
someone might suggest that Koons’s implicit assumptions go
beyond </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditions">b</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but not as far as </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditionsalt"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditionsalt"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>’
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditionsalt"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditionsalt"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditionsalt">b’</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
if there is no requirement that the intervals be at zero temporal
distance between each other for the signal to persist, one may ask
the person positing this alternative what other condition can be
given that does not go as far as </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditionsalt"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditionsalt"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>’
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditionsalt"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditionsalt"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conditionsalt"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b’</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">how
that would entail that necessarily there is no infinite number of
past non-overlapping temporal intervals, and why should one accept
such conditions? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As it
stands, Koons’s argument fails to show that temporal density is
impossible, and even assuming for the sake of the argument that it
shows that, then it fails to show that infinitely many past days –
for instance – are impossible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There seems
to be no way of fixing those shortcomings. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
Since the arguments I give in this subsection use some of the results
established in <A CLASS="western" HREF="#binary">subsection</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#binary">
4.4.4</A>, if objections to <I>all </I>of the arguments I gave in
that subsection were to succeed, that would block the arguments I
give in this section. However, I reckon that those objections failed,
as argued there, and while someone might raise further objections,
they would need to be argued for.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In any
case, and for the reasons given in an <A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitary">earlier</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#id.xvir7l">
</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitary">subsection</A>, one should
not accept the patchwork principles, even leaving aside the arguments
given in this subsection and the immediately previous one. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="successive addition"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>4.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>5</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>
An infinity by successive addition</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>?</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
this subsection, I will address another one of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig’s</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
arguments. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">According
to Craig, on a tensed theory of time, the reality of temporal
becoming makes it impossible for there to be an infinite past series
of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">events</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
of equal duration</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">since
those changes would have to happen by successive addition, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">but
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">by
addition of one change or event at a time, it would never be possible
to reach an infinity. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note120124"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note120124">r</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note120124">1</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note120124"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">6</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note120124"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">While
it seems clear to me that it would be impossible for there to be such
an infinite series</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">with
a beginning point</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
a key question here is whether a beginningless series is impossible.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">There
appears to be a significant difference between a case with a
beginning point and one that does not have a beginning point, namely
that in the case in which there is no beginning point, there are no
two events and/or times separated by an infinite temporal distance,
or by infinitely many intervals of equal duration, so the temporal
distance to be traversed</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">from
any specific time to another</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
always finite, and so is the number of intervals of equal duration
traversed by anyone or</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">anything
from any specific time to another.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">As
long as traversing finite distances is not a problem, it seems that
would block the argument.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Granted,
someone might still object to the infinite series of events without a
beginning and ask how the infinite series of past events was formed
in the first place, claiming that it would never form under a tensed
theory of time.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
a reply to that line of argument would be to point out that
precisely, since there is no beginning point, there is no need for an
infinite series to be formed from a certain time on, and also no time
at which the infinite past hadn’t already happened.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Given
the previous considerations</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and after reflection</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">I
conclude that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">the</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">argument
fails.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
the</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">following
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#orbits"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">subsections</SPAN></SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccN3Ho14nbkcVGRe4mYTukY1DyjAJFvnKXFa5VJNzT0/edit#bookmark=id.39kk8xu"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">I
will address some other arguments defended by Craig, and which
purportedly support his conclusion that it’s impossible for
there to be an infinite series of past events on a tensed theory of
time. I will also address an argument based on a modification of one
of Craig’s scenarios, and defended by Ben Waters. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">But
before I address those arguments, I would like to point out that,
while Craig defends</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccN3Ho14nbkcVGRe4mYTukY1DyjAJFvnKXFa5VJNzT0/edit#bookmark=id.3vac5uf"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">those
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccN3Ho14nbkcVGRe4mYTukY1DyjAJFvnKXFa5VJNzT0/edit#bookmark=id.39kk8xu">arguments
</A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">against
an infinite past in the context of a tensed theory of time, my
replies to those arguments do not require a tensed theory of time,
though of course they do not reject it, either. Thus, if someone
defended arguments essentially like those</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccN3Ho14nbkcVGRe4mYTukY1DyjAJFvnKXFa5VJNzT0/edit#bookmark=id.3vac5uf">defended
</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccN3Ho14nbkcVGRe4mYTukY1DyjAJFvnKXFa5VJNzT0/edit#bookmark=id.39kk8xu">by
Craig</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccN3Ho14nbkcVGRe4mYTukY1DyjAJFvnKXFa5VJNzT0/edit#bookmark=id.39kk8xu"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">but
without assuming a tensed theory of time, the replies I give below
would be equally applicable to them</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Shandy"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>4.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>5</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>1.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>
Tristra</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>m Shandy.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">One
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">arguments
against an infinite past is based on the story of Tristram Shandy.
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note120124"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note120124"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note120124"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note120124"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">6</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note120124"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Shandy
is a man who writes his autobiography, at a rather slow pace: it
takes Shandy a year to write the events of a single day. Also, he
writes about the events of one day, then the following day, and so
on.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to Craig, we should reject an infinite past because it’s
obviously coherent to write an autobiography at that pace, but if
Shandy had been writing from infinity, that would lead to
absurdities.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
what is obviously coherent is to write such an autobiography<I>
starting at a specific day</I>. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, to write an autobiography counting from infinity </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
meeting Craig's conditions </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
logically impossible.</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteshandy"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteshandy"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>r</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteshandy">1</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteshandy"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>7</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteshandy"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To
see why this is impossible, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">let’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
suppose otherwise</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">let’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
suppose the number of past years has the order type of the
non-positive integers, and </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">let’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
enumerate the past years in the following way: </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteleap"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>12</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteleap"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Last
year is 0, the previous year is -1, and so on. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, if the current year is 2013, then 2012 is 0, 2011 is -1,
2010 is -2, and so on. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now,
let F be a function from the set of non-positive integers into itself
such that for all nonnegative integers r and n, F(-r) = -n if and
only if -n is the most recent year Shandy wrote about during the year
-r. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, if, in the year -2000, Shandy wrote about a day in the year
-300001 and about a day in the year -300000, then F(-2000) = -300000.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given
the rate at which Shandy writes, and given also that, when writing
his autobiography, Shandy never writes about his future, we have the
following conditions: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. F(-r) ≤ -r. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. F(-r-365) = F(-r) - 1. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">By
induction: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3. F(-r-2*365) = F(-r-365-365) =
F(-r-365) - 1=F(-r) - 2</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4. F(-r-k*365) = F(-r) - k, for
all nonnegative k. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
in particular, taking r=0. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">F(0)
- k = F(-k*365) ≤ -k*365. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hence,
for every nonnegative integer k, </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">5.<B> 364*k ≤ -F(0)</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That’s
contradictory, as easily seen by taking (for instance) k = 1 +
(F(0)*F(0)). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
what’s logically impossible is Tristram Shandy scenario itself,
but that does not have anything to do with whether an infinite past
is possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Craig
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">a</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">cknowledge</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
that the scenario is logically impossible, yet claim</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>because </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">it
seems </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">“obviously”</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
coherent to write </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">one’s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
autobiography at a rate of one day per year, it seems to them that
the problem is the infinite past. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
have to confess that I find his reply puzzling. Clearly, the task of
writing one’s autobiography at a rate of one day per year ‘from
infinity’ - and meeting the conditions stipulated by Craig –
is contradictory, and so not coherent, let alone obviously so. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Incidentally,
there is a contradictory scenario about the future that seems similar
to the ‘Tristram Shandy’ scenario, in the sense that
accepting it would involve making the same kind of error as accepting
the Tristram Shandy scenario. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="aliceshandy"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Alice
Shandy writes a novel starting in the year 2000, and the story is set
in her future. She always writes about future days. Also, it takes
Alice a year to </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">specify</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
what happens in one day in her novel, and she always writes her novel
in sequence. In other words, she writes about what happens on some
day d</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
and after she finishes writing about d</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
she moves to the day after d</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
without jumping to any later day. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, for any number n, Alice
will spend more than n years writing her novel. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
‘Alice Shandy’ scenario is contradictory, but that does
not warrant a conclusion that an unbounded future is metaphysically
impossible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might insist that the task of writing a novel about the future,
writing about consecutive days at a rate of one day per year, is
obviously coherent, and so the fault must be with the idea of a
future with an unbounded future number of years, but it seems
apparent to me that such a reply would be very mistaken. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Incidentally,
in the Alice Shandy argument, whether presentism is true makes no
relevant difference in this context, for at least the following two
reasons: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>a. </B>Even on presentism, the
past is not real, even if it <I>was</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
But the future also </SPAN><I>will </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">be
real. Granted, someone might insist on the actuality of temporal
becoming in the past, or something like that, but that does not make
a difference to whether there is a contradiction. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
In any event, and leaving point </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
aside, the fact is that the contradiction in the Alice Shandy case is
obtained based on what she </SPAN><I>will</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
do according to the scenario. One may very well reach contradictions
using the future tense, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
that does not make the argument dissimilar in a relevant way. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
‘Tristram Shandy’ scenario is similar to the ‘Alice
Shandy’ scenario in the sense that Craig constructs a
contradictory scenario involving tasks that might intuitively strike
some people as possible, and the contradiction is the stipulation
that Shandy has been writing at that pace for all of the past, in a
similar way to the Alice Shandy scenario, in which the contradiction
is that Alice will be writing at that pace for more than any specific
finite number of years. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, the analogy with the Alice Shandy scenario is only meant to
illustrate the problem, and of course not needed. I would say that we
should in any case reject the ‘Tristram Shandy’ scenario
because the task of writing one’s biography at a rate of one
day per year ‘from infinity’ and under the stipulated
conditions is a contradiction, and the fact that the assumption that
it’s possible results in absurdities does not tell us anything
about whether an infinite past in which the set of past years has the
order type of the negative integers is metaphysically possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="meth"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>4.5.2.
Meth</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><B>uselah.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Ben Waters
defends an argument that is similar to <A CLASS="western" HREF="#Shandy">Craig’s
“Tristram Shandy” argument</A>, but with some
modifications, intended precisely to avoid some of the objections
raised against Craig’s construction. <A CLASS="western" HREF="#r17b">[r17b]</A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
even if Waters’s argument avoids <I>some </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
the mistakes in Craig’s argument</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ation</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
it </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">makes an unjustified
assumption, and as a result, it provides no good reason to think that
an infinite past is impossible or even not actua</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">l
– Waters claims it’s not actual, though if his reasoning
were correct, it </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">seems it</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
could be extended. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Still, the
main point is that Waters’s argument does not support the claim
that the past is actually finite.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Basically</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Waters: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Defines D as the set of all
days prior to today, and DF as the set of all days in D at a finite
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">distance from toda</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">y,
and uses '</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">≤</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'
for the total relation on D in the obvious manner. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
A</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">rgues</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">if there is a function f
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">from DF to DF such that
f(</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">)</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">≤</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
for all </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in DF and such that f(</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">+2)=1+f(</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">)
for all </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">+2
in DF, then DF is finite. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>c</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">A</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">rgues
that if DF is finite, then the set D of all days previous to today is
also finite. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>d</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">A</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">rgues
that a function f with the properties in question does exist.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Waters’s
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">claims in </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
and </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>c</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
are true. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The problem is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>d.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
that note, Waters’s description is a lot more detailed than
</SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Shandy"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig’s
in the Shandy argument</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
but in the end, the error is similar. More precisely, Waters
stipulates that: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>A.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
Methuselah has </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">been alive</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
for all </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">days d in DF</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and for every day, he has a
perfect memory of what he was doing in the immediately previous day.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>B.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
He has been writing his memoirs at a pace of half an entry per day,
for all days </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in his life</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
That is, it takes him two days to write down the activities of one
previous day. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>C.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
If, on a certain day </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">d</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
he remember</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s that on (d-1) he
was writing </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">about </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
events on (d-m) for some positive integer m, then he will continue
working on the entry for (d-m) if that entry is not complete; else,
he will start writing the entry for (d-m+1).</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>D.</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
If, on the other hand, on d </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Methuselah</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
does not remember that on </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">(d-1)
he was working on an entry for (d-m) for some positive integer m, he
will start working on an entry for d.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>E.
</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Methuselah is in a
logically possible world that is like the actual world in all
relevant temporal facts. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">While
stipulations about what Methuselah </SPAN><I>will </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">do
under such and such conditions might sound innocent </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at
first glance</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, the fact is
that Waters assumes that </SPAN><I>in a world with the same relevant
temporal facts as the actual work</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
Methuselah </SPAN><I><B>did </B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">perform
the tasks in question for </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">every
past day that is at a finite temporal distance from the present</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and so the function in
question – allegedly – exists. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
that’s obviously impossible if the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">cardinal
of DF </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is infinite, so that
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">implicitly but </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">quite
transparently </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">makes </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">assumption that it is
</SPAN><I>actually </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">not the case
that for every day d in the actual world, and for every natural
number n, there is a day d(n) in the actual world such that d(n) is n
days earlier than d. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Granted,
it might be argued that there are independent reasons for believing
that such a task is possible in a world with the same relevant
temporal facts as the actual world. But that would have to be argued
for. Waters’s argument does not show it, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or
gives any good reasons to suspect so. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
particular</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">pointing
out </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that the task </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">carried
out by Methuselah on each </SPAN><I>single</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
day </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is possible </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
a world with the same relevant temporal facts as the actual world,
and then appeal to a general </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">patching
principle, wouldn’t </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">succeed
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">without
explaining what the patching principle is and why one should believe
it. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Moreover,
given that the patching that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
be</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> required in the Methuselah
case would involve the memories of a single person </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">about
past activities, etc, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it
seems that any patching principle that might be applied to this case
would need to make it intrinsic to one temporal interval whether
something persists into some other, disjoint temporal interval –
or something akin to that -, which is at least one of the why reasons
</SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitary"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
patching principles defended by Koons ought to be rejected</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">To
be clear, I’m not suggesting that Waters is using a patching
principle, but rather, that if someone attempted to fix </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Waters’s</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
argument by positing such a principle, the burden would be on them,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and furthermore, given the
previous considerations, it seems that would fail as well.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">P</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">erhaps,
another </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">way of trying to
defend Waters’s argument </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
be to suggest that Methuselah’s powers and dispositions are
possible, and so allegedly the burden to show </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
it is not possible that a being exercises them </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">successfully
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in a </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">world
with the same relevant temporal facts as the actual world would be on
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the person objecting to
Waters’s Methuselah argument. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="docs-internal-guid-40d2685a-cbcb-b703-089a-40b0ad0f9222"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">This
defense fails as well, as the following points illustrate:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">1.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Let
us stipulate, only to simplify terminology and for the rest of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tC86S5KnCA2cOnufhLUR2Rhs3ydZttIazvW_FohiOrg/edit#bookmark=id.pkwqa1">this
subsection,</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
world W has an infinite past – or equivalently by definition,
that in W the past is infinite – if and only if there is some
day d in W such that for every natural number n, there is or there
was another day d(n) in W, such that d(n) is or was at least n days
earlier than d.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Similarly,
let us stipulate that W has a finite past – or equivalently by
definition, that in W the past is finite – if and only if for
every day d in W, either there were no days in W prior to d, or the
number of days in W that happened prior to d is a positive finite
number. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Those
are only stipulative definitions applicable to the rest of this
subsection, which are sufficient for the purposes of my reply to
Waters’s argument. I make no claim that the past cannot be
finite or infinite in some other sense, or that those definitions
match common usage, but at least they capture enough cases for the
purposes of this part of the reply to Waters.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Also,
Waters uses logically possible worlds instead of metaphysically
possible worlds, so let’s stipulate that for the rest of this
subsection we’re talking about logically possible worlds unless
otherwise specified.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
I would like to point out that an argument like Waters’s but
using metaphysical possibility instead of logical possibility would
not succeed, either. Some of the objections would have to be modified
to some extent, but the argument against an infinite past would still
fail because of its unwarranted stipulation about the relevant
temporal facts in the actual world.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Let
us now consider the powers and dispositions attributed to Methuselah
in Waters’s paper:</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.1.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">For
every pair (d-1,d), the power to remember perfectly on d what one did
on (d-1).</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.2.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
power and disposition to write a diary of one’s past activities
at a rate of half an entry per day.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.3.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
disposition that, for each d, if on day d one remembers that on a day
(d-1) one was working on an entry for day (d-m) for some positive
integer m, then one continues working on that entry if the entry for
(d-m) is incomplete, and starts working on the entry for (d-m+1) if
the entry for (d-m) is complete.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.4</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
The disposition that, for each d, if on day d it is not the case that
one remembers working on an entry as described in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.3</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
then one begins working on an entry for d.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.5.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Additionally
if needed, at least all powers of an adult, healthy and young human
being of average intelligence and strength, when no stronger
capability is specified. This particular condition is not required by
Waters, but it might be implicit, and in any case it’s
obviously possible and is not a problem to add it.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
powers and dispositions described in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">above
are possible powers and dispositions. Moreover, it is possible that
an entity exercises them successfully on every day in its life.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">For
example, let us stipulate that in world W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Bob</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">begins
to exist</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">on
day d, and that in W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
Bob has the powers and dispositions described in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and also exercises them successfully on every day in his life. This
is unproblematic, but does not tell us anything about whether the
past is actually finite or infinite, or even whether the past is
finite or infinite on W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Let
us also</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">stipulate</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
in world W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
Bob has and exercises the powers and dispositions described in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">successfully,
on every day in his life, and furthermore, that there is some day t
such that Bob is alive in W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">on
every day d earlier than t and at a finite temporal distance from t.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Then,
that implies that on W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
the past is finite. While it seems that W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
plausibly a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">logically
</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">possible
world, that does not give us any good reason to think that the past
is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">actually
</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">finite.
It would be improper to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">stipulate</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
exactly like the actual world with regard to all relevant temporal
facts, and then from that conclude that the past is</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">actually</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">finite.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">But
that is what Waters is doing in the case of Methuselah.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">While
points</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">above
suffice, I will give two analogies. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">1’</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">:
Same stipulations as in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">1
</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">above.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2’</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">:
Let us consider the following powers and dispositions:</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.1’:</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
power to come to know, on every day d in one’s life, that at
least some event E(d) happened on some day p(d) earlier than d.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.2’:</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
disposition to write down, on every day d in one’s life, at
least one of the events that happened on p(d).</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3’:</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
powers and dispositions described in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2’</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">above
are possible powers and dispositions.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Moreover,
it is possible that an entity exercises them successfully on every
day in its life.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">For
example, let us stipulate that in world W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
Alice begins to exist on some day (d(0)+1), and that on W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
Alice has the powers and dispositions described in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2’</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and exercises them successfully on every day in her life. This is
also unproblematic, but does not tell us anything about whether the
past is actually finite or infinite, or even whether the past is
infinite or finite in W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4’:</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Let
us no</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">w</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
stipulate that world W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
Alice is alive on every day earlier than some day t and at a finite
temporal distance from t, and that on W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
Alice has the powers and dispositions described in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2’</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and exercises them successfully on every day in her life.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Then,
it follows that the past is infinite in W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
this does not give us any good reason to believe that the past is
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">actually
</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">infinite,
even though it seems that W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">logically
</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">possible.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
particular, it would be improper to</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">stipulate</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
exactly like the actual world with regard to all relevant temporal
facts, and then from that conclude that the past is</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">actually</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">infinite.
The stipulation in the case of Bob or Methuselah – and the
corresponding conclusion – is improper as well.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">As
a reply to the Alice analogy, it might be argued that some of the
differences between the Alice scenario and the Bob/Methuselah
scenario are relevant at least some of the matters at hand for some
reason, but that would need to be argued for. In particular, if the
allegedly relevant difference would require the application of some
sort of patching principle, that would seem to fail too, for the
reasons I gave earlier in this subsection. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
any case, I would like to stress that the Alice scenario is not
required to establish the point that the reasoning behind the
Methuselah argument is flawed. It’s only an analogy that I hope
will illustrate a point better, but if it doesn’t, one may just
ignore it, and focus on points </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">above,
which suffice.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Let
us now consider a second analogy, this time involving the future:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">1’’.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Let
us stipulate, only to simplify terminology and for the rest of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meth">this
subsection</A>,<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
world W has an infinite future – or equivalently by definition,
that in W the future is infinite or will be infinite – if and
only if there is some day d in W such that for every natural number
n, there is or there will be another day d(n) in W, such that d(n) is
or will be at least n days later than d.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Similarly,
let us stipulate that W has a finite future – or equivalently
by definition, that in W the future is finite or will be finite –
if and only if for every day d in W, either d is the last day in W,
or the number of days in W that happened, happen and/or will happen
after d is a positive finite number. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Those
are only stipulative definitions applicable to the rest of this
subsection, which are sufficient for the purposes of my reply to
Waters’s argument. I make no claim that the future cannot be
finite or infinite in some other sense, or that those definitions
match common usage, but at least they capture enough cases for the
purposes of this part of the reply to Waters.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2’’.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Let
us now consider the following powers and dispositions, mirroring
those attributed to Methuselah in Waters’s paper, namely:</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.1’’.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">For
every pair (d-1,d), the power to remember perfectly on d what one did
on (d-1).</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.2’’.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
power and disposition to write a novel set in an imaginary </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">future
</SPAN></B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">at
a rate of half an entry per day, where an ‘entry’ for
some day d is an account of the events that take place in the
fictional story on day d. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
condition that the novel is set in an imaginary future means that if
one is writing on some day d</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and one is working on an entry for some day d</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
then d</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
earlier than d</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">in
the usual order - or would be so if d</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">1</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">existed,
if one prefers -, and one is writing fiction. Of course, since it’s
a fictional story, it is not required that d</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">exists
or will exist.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.3’’.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
disposition that, for each d, if on day d one remembers that on a day
(d-1) one was working on an entry for day (d+m) for some positive
integer m, then one continues working on that entry if the entry for
(d+m) is incomplete, and starts working on the entry for (d+m+1) if
the entry for (d+m) is complete.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.4’’</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
The disposition that, for each d, if on day d it is not the case that
one remembers working on an entry as described in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.3’’</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
then one picks any positive integer m of one’s choosing, and
begins working on an entry for (d+m). [As an alternative analogy, the
positive fixed integer is fixed and is m=1 trillion).</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.5’’.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Additionally,
at least all powers of an adult, healthy and young human being of
average intelligence and strength, when no stronger capability is
specified. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">3’’.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
powers and dispositions described in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2’’</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">above
are possible powers and dispositions. Moreover, it is possible that
an entity exercises them successfully on every day in its life.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">For
example, let us stipulate that in world W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">5.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Lilith
begins to exist on day d, and that in W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">5</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
Lilith has the powers and dispositions described in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2’’</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
and also exercises them successfully on every day in her life. Also,
her life lasts for 36500 days, and if she has to pick a number m of
her choosing as specified in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2.4’</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">’
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">above,
she picks m=1 trillion [in the variant in which m is fixed, she does
not need to pick].</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">This
is unproblematic, but does not tell us anything about whether the
future is actually finite or infinite, or even whether the future is
finite or infinite on W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">5</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4’’.</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Let
us also</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">stipulate</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
in world W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">6</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
Lilith has and exercises</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">and/or
had and exercised, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">will
have and will exercise, etc. - the powers and dispositions described
in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2’’</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">successfully,
on every day in her life, and furthermore, that there is some day t
such that Lilith is or will be alive in W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">6</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">on
every day d later than t and at a finite temporal distance from t.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Then,
that implies that on W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">6</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
the future is finite. It seems that W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
plausibly a </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">logically
</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">possible
world. Whether it’s a metaphysically possible world is another
matter, but there seems to be no contradiction in</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">say</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">stating
that a relational theory of time is true, and also that all changes
will eventually cease in W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">6</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
No contradiction seems to follow. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
even if W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">6
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
a logically possible world, that does not give us any good reason to
think that in the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">actual
</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">world
the future is or will be finite. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">It
would be improper to </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">stipulate</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
W</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">6</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">and
will be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">exactly
like the actual world with regard to all relevant temporal facts, and
then from that conclude that the future is or will be finite in the
actual world.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">But
that is relevantly similar to what Waters is doing in the case of
Methuselah.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="docs-internal-guid-e2b7befd-cc74-92ba-8aa2-b2e3680c3627"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">As
an objection to the Lilith analogy, someone might suggest that
perhaps W<FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt">6</FONT> is not
logically possible after all. However, since there appears to be no
contradiction in the description and there appears to be no good
reason to suspect that there might be a hidden contradiction, the
burden of showing that there is any serious doubt about the logical
possibility of W<FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt">6 </FONT>would be
on the person raising that objection. Moreover, <I>that would be a
distraction anyway</I>, since it should be clear that stipulating
that W<FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt">6</FONT> has and will have
the same relevant temporal facts as the actual world and then
concluding from that and the Lilith scenario that the actual world
has or will have a finite future would be improper <I>regardless of
whether </I>W<FONT SIZE=1 STYLE="font-size: 7pt">6 </FONT><I>is
logically possible. </I>Similarly, the stipulation is improper in the
Methuselah scenario in Waters’s paper.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="docs-internal-guid-91c0ff5d-eb08-e706-d25d-b8f523544126"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Alternatively,
someone might object to the Lilith analogy on the basis that –
allegedly – presentism is true, and for some reason that's a
problem for scenarios involving the future. However, leaving aside
the facts that presentism would not be <I>logically </I>necessary
even if it were metaphysically necessary, and that even on
presentism, one can properly make stipulations and reason about what
<I>will</I> happen, an objection based on presentism would miss the
point as well, since <I>regardless </I>of any issues involving
presentism, the conclusion that the future is or will be finite based
on the Lilith scenario ought to be rejected because of the
unwarranted stipulation that the Lilith scenario happens in a world
that has and will have the same relevant temporal facts as the actual
world. That stipulation is relevantly similar to Waters’s
stipulation in the Methuselah scenario. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
any event, and a</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">s
in the case of the Alice analogy, the purpose of the Lilith analogy
is to better illustrate why the Methuselah argument does not succeed.
But the Lilith analogy is not required, and if it does not make
matters more clear, one may just ignore it and focus on points </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">2</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">4</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">above,
which suffice.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="orbits"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4.</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>5.3</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>.
Orbits a</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>nd
parity.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Another
argument against an infinite past defended by Craig </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note120"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note120"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>r18</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is based on orbits and the alleged parity of some numbers. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to this argument, it’s absurd that if Jupiter completes 2.5
orbits for each one Saturn completes, they would both have completed
the same number of orbits, if they have been orbiting the Sun for an
infinite number of years. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
and</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
leaving aside the fact that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">any
planet, star, etc., </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">only
lasts for finitely many years in the actual world</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
fact is that there </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">appears
to be no absurdity at all. As in the case of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#hilbert"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Hilbert
Hotel argument</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">any</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">alleged
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">problem
seems to be a confusion about the meaning of the words. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">More
specifically, that the number of completed orbits would be the same
if they had been orbiting forever and there were an infinite past
composed of denumerably many years merely means that there would be a
bijection between the set of orbits completed by one of the planets,
and the set of orbits completed by the other planet, and that’s
as clear as the fact that, say, the set of natural numbers that are
multiples of two has the same cardinality as the set of natural
numbers that are multiples of five. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition to the previous argument, Craig also says that if a planet
had been orbiting for eternity, the number of completed orbits would
be both even and odd, and provides an unusual definition of '‘even’
and ‘odd’' that would apply to infinite cardinals, and
under which infinite cardinals would turn out to be both even and
odd. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
that is not a problem, either, but rather, a consequence of Craig’s
unusual choice of definitions and the fact that there is a bijection
between any two denumerable sets. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Of
course, once again in reality </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>planets
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>don’t</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
last indefinitely, but that is not at all relevant. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scientific"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>4.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>6</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>.
Scientif</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>ic cosmology.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">According
to </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">Craig</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">modern </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">scientific
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">cosmology</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
supports </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">the second premise of the Kalam
Cosmological Argument. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">In this section,
I will </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">assess</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">his arguments on the matter</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">,
and raise</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"> some</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
objections. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="shbbm"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>4.6.1.
The Friedmann–Lemaître Model. </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
contends that what he calls </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">“Standard
Hot Big Bang Model”</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">or
Friedmann-Le</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ma</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">î</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">tre</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">model
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>r</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2">2</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>,
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">supports
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
beginning</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of
the universe </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that
is an absolute origin ex-nihilo, and space and time themselves come
into being at an initial singularity. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
singularity in </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">mathematical
model </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">indicates</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
that the equations </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of
General Relativity </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">don’t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
properly describe some phenomena</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in the distant past</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
not that there is some </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">actual
thing</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of infinite density – that would not even be defined</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
fact, General Relativity only takes into consideration one force –
namely, gravity -, ignoring the rest, and while </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that’s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
usually be</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
good enough</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
for large objects</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">but
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
a very small universe</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
like the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">universe
in a distant past</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
other forces </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
the possibility of quantum effects </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">should
be taken into account as well</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#planck"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#planck"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">r</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#planck"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#planck"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">9</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#planck"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
More precisely, what </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">was
small was the universe in the sense in which the word </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘universe’</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is used in some scientific models, but whether the universe was small
in the sense in which the word </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">‘universe’</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is used in the KCA is another matter. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
any event, t</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">he
proper conclusion </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">here </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">is
that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">we’re</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
not justified in applying </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">those</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
equations beyond a certain time in the past</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">which </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">of
course provides no support for the second premise of the KCA</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">In
addition to that, the model in question </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">entails
an infinite past sequence of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">changes</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">,
since as we move f</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">u</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">rther
back in time, the density of the universe </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">tends
to infinity, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">and so there are more than
n consecutive </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">changes</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
in which th</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">e
density of </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">our
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">universe
decreases, for each n, even if the past </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">in
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">that
model is metric-finite.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">one
of the models</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Craig
offers in suppor</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
of his </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">claims
against an infinite past</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
is incompatible with </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">his</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
stance on the possibility of actual infinities</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
as long as an infinite regress of changes is an actual infinity. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Granted,
Craig or another defender of the KCA may simply point out </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">some
of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">what
I mentioned above</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
namely</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
that the model</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
in question</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
is not applicable beyond a certain time in the past, and so their
stance on infinities is not</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
undermined or defeated. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">But
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">that
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">only
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">underscores
the fact that this cosmological model </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">is
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">not
applicable beyond a certain time in the past, and thus </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">for
that reason </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">of
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">no
use for a defender of the KCA</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
even if the were ‘universe’ were being used in the
relevant sense</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
here - which is not the case. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P LANG="zxx" CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, while
someone might suggest that such a regress is not an actual infinity
if presentism is true because only the present exists, that objection
is incompatible with Craig’s position, since for the same
reason, even infinitely many past years would not be an actual
infinity on presentism. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="guth1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>4.</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>6</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>.2.
Th</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>e
Borde-</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>Guth-</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>Vilenkin
Theorem. </B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition to the previous model</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">often
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">appeals</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigonguth"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigonguth">r</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigonguth">2</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigonguth">0</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Craigonguth"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">paper
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">by
Guth, Borde and Vilenkin</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Guth"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Guth">r</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Guth">2</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Guth">1</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Guth"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
offers that paper </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
the theorem proved in it </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">as
evidence in </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">support
of the</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
second premise of the KCA. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
that paper</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, t</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">he
authors reach the conclusion that if some reasonable assumptions
obtain,</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> then</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
the past boundary of the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">inflating
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">universe is reached in a
finite past, and</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> some</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
new physics</SPAN><I> </I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">required to described that
boundary. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">they </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">make
no claims </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in that paper </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">about
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">what the new </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">physics
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would be</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">beyond mentioning that
se</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">veral alternatives have
been discussed,</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> including a
quantum event in which the universe originates</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
even</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">if
such quantum event actually happened</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
a finite time ago</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
that would be part of the universe</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in the sense in which the word </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘universe’</SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
is used in the KCA</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Would that
imply that the universe, in the sense in which the word ‘universe’
is used in the KCA, began to exist? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That would
need to be argued for. Showing a beginning of the universe in a
narrower sense of ‘universe’ would not suffice. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="othermodels"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>4.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>6</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>.3.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>Other
arguments</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>
based on scientific cosmology</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig
offers a number of other arguments, based on different hypotheses in
modern science, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">basically
arguing </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that all </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">hypothese</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">s
that aren't </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">too implausible
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">lead to the conclusion that
the universe had a beginning. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">A
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">crucial </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">issue</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
here is what is meant by </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘universe’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in the context of those hypotheses, and what is meant by </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘universe’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in the context of the KCA. </SPAN><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">What
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">defender
of the KCA would have to show in order to properly support premise 2
is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">not only that the object
called '</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘universe’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in the context of those </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">scientific
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">hypotheses </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">b</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">eg</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">an
to exist</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">but
that</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> all of those hypotheses
support a beginning of the universe</SPAN><I> in the sense of the
word </I><I>‘universe’</I><I>' that is relevant in the
KCA</I><I>. </I><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note+"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note+"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">1</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note+"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">3</SPAN></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#note+"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In particular, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">they</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
would </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">still </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">need
to show that, plausibly, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">either:
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">i.
T</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">here is no time </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
some realm </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">(say, an older
universe in a restrictive sense of ‘universe’, or a
multiverse, etc.) </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
prior to the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">existence of the
object called ‘universe’ </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
those scientific hypotheses</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
or</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ii.
If there is time in some realm that is prior to the existence of the
object called </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘universe’</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
in those scientific hypotheses, that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">realm
would </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">plausibly </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">not
qualify as ‘universe’ in the context of the KCA</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But Craig
and other defenders of the KCA have not shown that, so the burden
remains on them. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still, we
may speculate about what kind of argument would be required to
support the second premise of the KCA using empirical evidence. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps, a
defender of the KCA might try a probabilistic argument like the
following argument: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>If the
object called ‘universe’ in scientific models had an
infinite past, then so would the universe in the sense in which the
word ‘universe’ is used in the KCA. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>So, if,
based on the empirical evidence available to us, we should revise our
prior probabilistic assessment of the hypothesis that the object
called ‘universe’ in the context of scientific models has
an infinite past, assigning higher probability to that hypothesis
than before the empirical evidence was considered, then we should
also reduce the probability assigned to the second premise of the
KCA. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>In other
words, empirical evidence that increases the probability that the
object called ‘universe’ in the context of scientific
models has an infinite past, also decreases the probability that the
second premise of the KCA is true. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>But
then, reciprocally, empirical evidence that decreases the probability
that the object called ‘universe’ in the context of
scientific models has an infinite past, also increases the
probability that the second premise of the KCA is true. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A first
difficulty here is that different models might use the word
‘universe’ somewhat differently. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But Let’s
assume that ‘universe’ means the same in all of the
models, to simplify. <BR>Even then, the probabilistic argument above
would not be enough to establish that the second premise of the KCA
is true, or even probably true.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In order to
justify an assessment that the second premise of the KCA is <I>probably</I>
true, based on empirical evidence, a defender of the KCA would also
have to show that: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. Based on
empirical evidence, we should conclude that the object called
‘universe’ in scientific models probably has a finite
past. He would not have to show what the proper probabilistic
assignment to P is, but show it’s P > 0.5. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. Given
the probability P in a., it is probable that the universe, in the
sense in which the word ‘universe’ is used in the KCA<A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#universeconcept1"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A>,
has a finite past. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
Craig and other defenders of the KCA have not shown that, <I>even
</I><I>assuming P=1</I>, then it’s probable that the universe,
in the sense in which the word ‘universe’ is used in the
KCA, has a finite past. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover,
even if we granted for the sake of the argument that if P has a high
value (say, P > 0.8), then b. is true, still Craig and other
defenders of the KCA have not shown that we ought to assign such a
high value to P. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="cyclic"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><B>4.</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><B>6</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><B>.4.
</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><B>Cyclic
models</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><B>
and other</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><B>
options </B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><B>for</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><B>
</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><B>an
infinite past</B></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><B>.
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Some
of the models of a universe with an infinite past that Craig
considers</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> and rejects</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecyclic"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecyclic">r</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecyclic">2</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecyclic">2</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecyclic"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in his defense of the KCA are cyclic model</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of the univers</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">e. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, in particular</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
he considers a model proposed by Frampton</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#frampton"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#frampton">r</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#frampton">2</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#frampton">3</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#frampton"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In his
assessment, Craig mentions some of the objections to the model and
the replies by Frampton, and in the end concludes that the field is
too young to make a full judgment, but that nevertheless it seems
that some of the problems of older cyclic models remain.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, even
though Craig says that he’s not passing full judgment, he does
give the impression that he’s making some kind of probabilistic
assessment, implicitly saying that some of the objections that
defeated some earlier cyclic models probably will defeat this one as
well, and further, will defeat all cyclic models. But Craig does not
provide any adequate support for such an assessment. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In any
case, and regardless of Craig’s claims about that particular
cyclic model, a question in this context is whether we should assess
that cyclic models of a universe with an infinite past probably fail.
I do not see any sufficient reason to reach that conclusion at this
point. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
there are objections to such models, but <I>no </I>model, cyclic or
otherwise, is generally accepted at this point. Rather, scientists
are working on the development of different hypotheses, and a number
of different options remain open. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
particular, the option of a cyclic universe with an infinite past
continues to be </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a live
one</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">, and there </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">are
several </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">recent papers
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">discussing </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
number of </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">variants of it
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">as potential </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">option</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecyclic2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecyclic2">r</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecyclic2">2</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecyclic2">4</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecyclic2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">even leaving aside cyclic
models, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">there </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">appear
to be</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> non-cyclic options
of a universe with an infinite past</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
still on the table</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notenocyclic"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notenocyclic">r</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notenocyclic">2</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notenocyclic">5</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notenocyclic"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
s</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">eems
that whe</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ther
the past is infinite is an open question in science</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and there appears to be no good reason to take a stance at this
point. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Conclusion"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>5.
</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>Conclusion</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>s</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><B>.</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">Neither
the first nor the second premise of the KCA is properly supported by
the arguments given by Craig and others who propose them, and I see
no good reason </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">independently of those
arguments to </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">accept </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">said
premises, either. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">Moreover,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">the arguments in support of the second
premise are arguments for a beginning of time, which, if correct,
would be good evidence </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>against</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
the first premise. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">All
of the above</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> would give us enough
reasons to reject the KCA, but a</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">dditionally,
there are </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">very </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">serious
questions about the coherence of the creator </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">and/or
the creation account proposed by Craig</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> –
i.e., the view that God is timeless without creation and temporal
with it -</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">, and generally by any similar
versions of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">the </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+">KCA+</A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notes"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.
Notes. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="timelessworkofart"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[1]
In some contexts, people might talk about, say, a timeless work of
art, but that’s clearly not the sense of ‘timeless’
that is relevant here. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US">[</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">2</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">]</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
It’s not clear </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">to me </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">whether
Craig uses '</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">‘changeless’</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
and </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">‘quiescent’</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">'
to mean the same. </SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">But</SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-US">
either way, the problems for his position remain, as argued above. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="abstract"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">3</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]
Or the only </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>concrete</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
object</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
exists </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
O</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
if abstracta are part of a correct ontology. That issue is not
relevant to the argument under consideration</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
so we may stipulate anything in that regard</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
if we so choose. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
if a reader includes abstracta in an ontology, then the scenarios
should read </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘concrete</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">object’</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
instead of </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">‘object’</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">',
but </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">other
than that, </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
arguments are the same. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="universeconcept1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">[</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">4</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">]
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">Accordi</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">ng
to Craig, </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">“the
universe”</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">
in the context of the KCA is defined as </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">“the
whole of material reality”</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">.
</SPAN></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaninguniverse">[</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaninguniverse"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">r</SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaninguniverse">1</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaninguniverse">1</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#meaninguniverse"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">]</SPAN></FONT></A></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">It’s
not clear to me what </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">“material”</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
means</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> in this context</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">,
or even if </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">Craig </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">using
the word in a manner that is both coherent and sufficiently precise
for the whole Kalam Cosmological Argument. </FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">But
assuming that his usage is coherent and precise enough, what is clear
is that if </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">there
were a multiverse, infinite past cyclic universes, etc., all of that
would be </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">contained
in </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">the
universe in the </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">sense
of </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">‘universe’</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
intended by Craig. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="intuitions"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[5]
O<SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">ur intuitions about space and
time, while very useful in daily life, do not work so well in some </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">of
the situations modern physics deals with, like the proximity of a
black hole, or the early universe, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">or
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">subatomic particles</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">etc.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">It’s not at all
clear, to say the least, that those intuitions are reliable in
contexts like a purported beginning of the universe, etc. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">given that</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
defenders of the KCA </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">propose
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">intuitions in support of
the first premise, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">we
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">may </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">offer
rebuttals based on intuitions</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
as well</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">, among others. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="intuitions2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[6]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">M</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">y
intuitive assessment of infinite past vs. a finite past has changed
over </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">the
years – w</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">hile
I used to find both of the alternatives counterintuitive (so, </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">I
had conflicting intuitions, and </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">surely,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">one
of my intuitions </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">was</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">misleading</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">),
I used to find the former more counterintuitive, whereas now it’s
the </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">latter
–, </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">my
intuition that </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">if</SPAN></B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">time
and space beg</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">an
to exist together in a finite past</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">then
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">there
is no </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">efficient
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">cause
of time </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">or
space</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">has</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
not changed</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notepresent"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[7]
The claim that an infinite temporal regress would constitute an
actual infinity is at least debatable on presentism, which is
precisely the theory of time that Craig espouses. But Let’s
grant for the sake of the argument and unless otherwise specified
that an infinite temporal regress would constitute an actual
infinity, even on presentism. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notehotel2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[8]
Greater infinities would not make a relevant difference, so one may
assume a larger infinity for that matter, and then make a similar
analysis and raise similar counterarguments. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="minus"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[9]
By A\B I mean the set of elements of A that are not elements of B. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="sufferingpacth"></A><A NAME="atheism"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">[</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">10</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">]</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
Incidentally, s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">uch a principle </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">c</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">ould
provide </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">grounds for arguments against
theism. For example, one can consider a scenario in which a being
with the mind of a four-years-old human suffers horribly for a long
period – which surely is possible -, and then by means of
infinitary patchwork, cover </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>all</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
of spacetime with such beings like that suffering horribly, and
nothing else, which can be used to strengthen even the argument from
suffering – though I do not believe it requires strengthening</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
-, at least when it comes to objecting to versions of theism that
posit that God exists necessarily. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteset"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[11] Koons uses the word “set”,
but it’s not entirely clear to me that that would be a set. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, for all I know, there might be a possible world W with
spatial structures of cardinality x, for any cardinal x. If so, the
class of spatio-temporal regions of W would not be a set. <FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
any case, this</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
is a side issue. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">[</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">1</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">2]
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">I’m stipulating 1 year = 365 days
and ignoring leap years, for the sake of simplicity; a more
complicated proof would include leap years, but it’s clear that
the contradiction does not depend on whether we </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">take
into consideration </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">leap years. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
the assumption that the set of past years has the order type of the
set of non-positive integers is acceptable in this context, since
that is the main hypothesis that Craig claims ought to be rejected
due to the Tristram Shandy argument, and since in any case, I intend
to show that the 'Tristram Shandy' argument does not show that such a
past is impossible. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="note+"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[13]
I’m taking into consideration the fact that defenders of the
KCA are actually also defenders of the <A CLASS="western" HREF="#KCA+">KCA+</A>,
and that rules out the use of the word ‘universe’ in the
KCA in a narrow sense, such as the use that it might be given to the
word ‘universe’ in some scientific models. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>At
any rate, using ‘universe’ in a narrow sense in the
second premise of the KCA would on its own make the argument
irrelevant in the context of philosophy of religion, since that
conclusion would not rule out the that there was some older realm
before the universe, and more precisely a realm that does not entail
or suggest a personal creator. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="references"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.
References. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="CraigBlackwell"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r1]
William Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological
Argument”, in “The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology”, Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<BR>Page 102. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r2]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="timeless"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causation-and-spacetime</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="nominalism"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r3]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/current-work-on-god-and-abstract-objects</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="Godchanged"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r4</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5971</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r5</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]
William Lane Craig and J.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">P.
Sinclair, </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">“The Kalam
Cosmological Argument”</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
in </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">“The BlackWell
Companion to Natural Theology”</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, © 2009
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<BR>Page 106. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notecraigreply"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r6</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9269</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notepage116"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">r7</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">William
Lane Craig and J.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">P.
Sinclair, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">“The
Kalam Cosmological Argument”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">“The
BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, © 2009
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; pages 115, 116. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="beginningoftime"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">[</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">r8</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">]
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">William Lane
Craig, </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">“God
and the Beginning of Time”</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="en-US">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-beginning-of-time</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="meaningbegins"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r9]
William Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological
Argument”, in “The Blackwell Companion to Natural
Theology”, Edited by William lane Craig and J. P. Moreland;
pages 184, 185. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notepage182"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r10] <FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Willia</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">m
Lane Craig and J.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">P.
Sinclair, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“The
Kalam Cosmological Argument”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“The
BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, © 2009
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 182</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-6</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="meaninguniverse"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">r1</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">1</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">]</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notecraig2"></A><A NAME="notepage1821"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r12]
William Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological
Argument”, in “The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology”, Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 108-115.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="pruss2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[r13] </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/10/from-grim-reaper-paradox-to-kalaam.html</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="pruss3"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r14]
<A CLASS="western" HREF="http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/2009/10/02/from_grim_reape/">http://pros</A><A CLASS="western" HREF="http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/2009/10/02/from_grim_reape/">blogion.ektopos.com/2009/10/02/from_grim_reape/</A></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/2009/10/02/from_grim_reape/#comment-23553</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notekoonsreapers"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[r15] Koons, R. C. (2012), A New
Kalam Argument: Revenge of the Grim Reaper. Noûs. Doi:
10.1111/j.1468-0068.2012.00858.x </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also:
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">http://www.robkoons.net/media/83c9b25c56d629ffffff810fffffd524.pdf</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2012.00858.x/abstract</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="note120124"></A><A NAME="notepage18211"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r16]
William Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological
Argument”, in “The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology”, Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 117-124.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="noteshandy"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r17]
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Josh Dever, in </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">“Worlds
Apart”</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>, </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">Taiwanese
Journal for Philosophy and History of Science, 10 (1998), pointed out
that the scenario is contradictory. </FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>This
was also pointed out by Graham Oppy, in “Arguing about Gods”,
Cambridge University Press (2006). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="r17b"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[r17b</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]
Ben Waters, in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Calibri, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><I>Philosophia
Christi </I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Calibri, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Volume
15, Number 2 (2013) </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="note120"></A><A NAME="notepage182111"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r18]
William Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological
Argument”, in “The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology”, Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 120.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="planck"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r19</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">1.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>Matts Roos, <FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“Expansion
of the Universe – Standard Big Bang Model”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2005</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>2.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/planck.html</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>3.
http://www.nicadd.niu.edu/~bterzic/PHYS652/Lecture_13.pdf</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>4.
http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Craigonguth"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r20</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notepage1821111"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>William
Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological
Argument”, in “The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology”, Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 141. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-cosmology-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Guth"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r21</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">]
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Guth,
Borde, and Vilenkin, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“Inflationary
spacetimes are not past-complete”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Physical</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">Review
Letters </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">90, 151301</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notecyclic"></A><A NAME="notepage1821112"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r22]
<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Willia</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">m
Lane Craig and J.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">P.
Sinclair, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“The
Kalam Cosmological Argument”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“The
BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, © 2009
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">s
150-157. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="frampton"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">3]
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Paul
Fram</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">p</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ton,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“Cyclic
Universe and Infinite Past”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2730</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notecyclic2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r24]
There are many examples. I will mention a few, but one might as well
choose others. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
be clear, I’m not suggesting that any particular model is
likely, but merely pointing out that the matter of an infinite cyclic
past is open in modern scientific cosmology. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
for example, one can mention – among others: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Yun-Song
Piao, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“Proliferation
in Cycle”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.2644</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Yun-Song
Piao</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“Design
of a Cyclic Multiverse”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0631</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Hua-Hui
Xiong, Yi-Fu Cai, Taotao Qiu, Yun-Song Piao, Xinmin Zhang,
“Oscillating universe with quintom matter”.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0413</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Kazuharu
Bamba, Kuralay Yesmakhanova, Koblandy Yerzhanov, Ratbay Myrzakulov</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“Reconstruction
of the equation of state for the cyclic universes in homogeneous and
isotropic cosmology”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3401v2</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Yi-Fu
Cai, Emmanuel N. Saridakis</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“Cyclic
cosmology from Lagrange-multiplier modified gravity”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3204</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Kazuharu
Bamba, Ujjal Debnath, Kuralay Yesmakhanova, Petr Tsyba, Gulgasyl
Nugmanova, Ratbay Myrzakulov, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">“Periodic
Cosmological Evolutions of Equation of State for Dark Energy”</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4226</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notenocyclic"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[r25]
For instance: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Pierre-Henri
Chavanis, “A simple model of universe with a polytropic
equation of state”- http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.1192</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<BR>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-14609567554047044072012-08-06T20:32:00.000-07:002013-03-05T13:07:01.387-08:00A Reply To Theistic Arguments from Contingency (v 5.3)<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="OpenOffice.org 3.2 (Linux)">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20120805;23110000">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20130205;7281900">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; direction: ltr; color: #000000; widows: 0; orphans: 0 }
P.western { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; so-language: en-US }
P.cjk { font-family: "Liberation Sans", "Arial"; font-size: 12pt; so-language: ja-JP }
P.ctl { font-family: "Tahoma", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; so-language: fa-IR }
A.western:link { so-language: zxx }
A.ctl:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" TEXT="#000000" DIR="LTR">
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; widows: 0; orphans: 0"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><A CLASS="western" HREF="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0mQAE95lvhxRjF5dkFLMnM3b1k"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="zxx">Download
in .pdf format</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western"><A CLASS="western" HREF="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0mQAE95lvhxRHZCT1h3VTZfc00"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN LANG="zxx">Download
in .html format</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P LANG="zxx" CLASS="western"><BR><BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=4 STYLE="font-size: 15pt"><B>A
Reply to Theistic Arguments from Contingency </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="index"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Index: </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Introduction"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>1.
Introduction and acknowledgement.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#terminology"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>2.
Some terminology.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceivability"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>3.
Metaphysical possibility, conceivability and visualization. Some
preliminary thoughts.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#somegods"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>4.
A difficulty for some gods.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#extending"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>5.
Extending causal and explanatory principles. Some general
considerations.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinities"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.
Infinities, an infinite past, and some related matters.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#hilbert"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.1.
Hilbert's Hotel.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#reapers"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.2.
Grim reapers.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#discretetime"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.2.1.
Discrete time.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#reapershotel"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.2.2.
Grim reapers, infinite regress, and the Hilbert Hotel. </B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#placers"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.3.
Grim placers and/or grim signalers.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleplacer"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.3.1.
Possibility of a grim placer.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#compresstime"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.3.2.
Compressibility of spacetime.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitary"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.3.3.
Infinitary patchwork.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#signalers"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.3.4.
Grim signalers.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#Shandy"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.4.
Tristram Shandy.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#orbits"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.5.
Orbits and parity.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#aristoteliandiscreteness"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.6.
Discrete time and infinite regress.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#science"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>6.7.
Scientific cosmology.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>7</B></U></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#brief"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>.
Some assorted comments.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#BCCF"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>7.1.
The Big Contingent Conjunctive Fact (BCCF), and the BCCF*</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitechain"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>7.2.
Infinite causal chains.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#morality"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>7.3.
Morality and contingency.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#cannonball"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>7.4.
Infinite conjunctions and cannonballs.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#conjunctioncorners"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>7.5.
Conjunctions, corners and Inuits.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#quantumrandom"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>7.6.
Unexplained contingent beings.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#causalnecessity"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>7.7.
Metaphysical necessity and causal necessity.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#maximalcontingent2"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>8.
An argument from maximal contingent states of existence.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#maximalcontingent"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>8.1.
Possibility of maximal contingent states of existence.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#causal0"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>8.2.
The causal principle. </B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#mereological issues"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>9.
A mereological argument from contingency.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#notation"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>9.0.
Notation and definitions.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#mereologicalprinciples"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>9.1.
Mereological principles.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 1"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>9.1.1.
Axiom 1.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 4"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>9.1.2.
Axiom 4.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 2"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>9.1.3.
Axiom 2.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#causalkoons"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>9.2.
Causal principles.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 6"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>9.2.1.
Axiom 6.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom7"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>9.2.2.
Axiom 7.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom8"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>9.2.3.
Axiom 8.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#moreprinciples"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>10.
Three more causal principles, and more contingency arguments.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#properties"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>11.
An argument from the exemplification of properties.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#propertiesexistence"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>11.1.
Properties and existence. Contingency.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#timebegins"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>11.2.
A beginning of time.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#causalprinciple"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>11.3.
The causal principle. </B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#artificial"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.
A proposed assessment of the evidence.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#uniformity"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.1.
Uniformity and simplicity.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.2.
Conceivability without visualization.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.3.
Conceivability plus visualization.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.4.
Continuity.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#mindbrain"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.5.
Agents and complex physical brains.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#particlescontingency"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.6.
Particles and contingency.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#contingent causes"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.7.
Causality.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#limitations"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.8.
Causal limitations and liabilities.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatory"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.9.
Explanatory intuitions.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.9.1.
Explanatory intuitions without necessary beings.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynecessary"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.9.2.
Explanatory intuitions and necessary beings.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#foundations"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.10.
Foundations and intuitions.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#overall"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>12.11.
Overall assessment.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#candidates"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>13.
Candidates to necessary concrete beings. General considerations.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#objections"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>14.
Some theistic objections, and rebuttals.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#attributes"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.
Basic attributes of a necessary cause.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#notation2"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.1.
Notation.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#alternative2"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.2.
More alternative hypotheses.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#necessity"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.3.
Aggregates and necessity.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#basicattributes"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.4.
Basic attributes, necessity and measurability.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#abstracta"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.4.1.
Measurability and abstracta.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitionsmeasure"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.4.2.
Intuitions and measurability.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#daily"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.4.3.
Daily experiences, science, and measurability. Mental properties.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#discrete3"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.4.4.
Discrete time, space, charge, etc.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#probameasure"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.4.5.
Probabilistic assessments.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#spatial"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.5.
Spatial and temporal location.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#continuous"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.6.
Personhood and degrees.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#development"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.6.1.
Development.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#evolution"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>15.6.2.
Evolution. </B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#togod"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.
Power, agency, knowledge and moral goodness</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>.</B></U></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#terminology1"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.1.
Terminology.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#libertarian1"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.2.
Libertarian freedom.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#degreed"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.3.
Degreed properties.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#causal7"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.4.
The causal principle.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinite"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.5.
Infinite power.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#agency"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.6.
Agency.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#knowledge"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.7.
Infinite knowledge.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#goodness"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.8.
Infinite goodness.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#alien"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.8.1.
The problem of [potential] alien minds.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#aobjection1"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.8.1.1.
Theism and alien minds.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#morality3"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.8.1.2.
Objective morality and alien minds.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#aobjection3"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.8.1.3.
Human moral knowledge and alien minds.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#universal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.8.1.4.
Morality and some different alien minds</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>.</B></U></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 1.18in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#donotcare"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>16.8.1.5.
Alien minds without morality or anything like it.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conclusion"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>Conclusion.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notesreferences"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U><B>Notes
and references.</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Introduction"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>1.
Introduction and acknowledgment.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Arguments
from contingency use some causal or explanatory principle, in
combination with other hypotheses, to derive the existence of a
causally effective being that exists necessarily. After reaching that
conclusion, theistic arguments give further reasons to support the
conclusion that the being in question has some specific essential
properties, like agency, great power, moral goodness, moral
perfection, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this essay, I will raise objections to both the first and the second
part of the theistic argumentation just outlined, considering both
specific theistic arguments from contingency and general principles
and/or reasons that might be used in such arguments. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="KCA"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, and while this essay is not
about the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinities"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>I
will address also arguments against an infinite past</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
commonly raised in the context of the KCA, since they are relevant
also in the context of some arguments from contingency, and </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#artificial"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>in
the assessment of some competing hypotheses</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
In my assessment, the arguments in this essay are sufficient to block
the KCA as well. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Unless
otherwise specified, I will grant for the sake of the argument that
essentialism is true whenever a theistic argument assumes so. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
usual, I do not claim that there is any novelty in the arguments I
post. Some of them are already found in a number of other sources,
and in some other cases, for all I know someone might have come up
with them before I did. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To
close this introduction, I would like to thank Joshua Rasmussen for
his thoughtful and useful comments, ideas and objections on a number
of issues involving contingency arguments. Even though his main
conclusions are very different from mine – and on that note,
I'm not suggesting that he'd endorse anything in this essay -, I
value his insight, and his willingness to share his views with me. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="terminology"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>2. Some
terminology. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a.
I will use the term 'argument' broadly, to talk both about formal
arguments (i.e., premises and conclusions), and the reasoning given
in support of their premises (i.e., 'arguments' in the sense of
'arguing a case'). I think that these usages are common enough, and
context should prevent any ambiguity. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b.
I will sometimes use terms like 'universe', 'physical being',
'unembodied', etc., even though they're imprecise, because they are
often used in contingency arguments, and I'm considering objections
to them. It does not seem to me that terminological imprecision is
generally any more of a problem for an objector to contingency
arguments than for a defender of them, though the matter may vary
depending on the particular case. At any rate, I will add some
definitions to make matters somewhat more precise if that appears to
be needed. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="full"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c. By 'X is fully caused by Y', I
mean that Y is a sufficient cause of X; i.e., Y is sufficient to
bring about that X obtains or that X will obtain. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="unicorn"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">d. By 'unicorn' I mean 'a
horse-like living organism with a single horn and large wings', and
nothing more or less. Unicorns needn't be capable of flight. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="moralagent"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">e. By a 'moral agent' I mean an
agent who has moral properties – like being morally good or
morally bad, perhaps to some degree -, and/or some of whose actions
have moral properties. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">f.
I will refer to the parts of this essay as 'sections' and
'sub-sections' only – i.e., no 'sub-sub-sections'. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">g.
While I don't believe that abstracta are beings, I would use
expressions like 'concrete being', to reduce the risk of ambiguity. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">h.</FONT>
While usually the discussion is about whether God exists, under any
of the common conceptions of the term, I will introduce two
definitions for the sake of (slightly) greater clarity. There is no
need to include uniqueness conditions or names explicitly in the
definitions, so I will simply call them 'a god', 'gods', etc., but
the definitions cover usual forms of philosophical theism. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Definitions:</B> </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="typesofgods"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Type 1</B>: An agent E is a
god of type 1 if and only if E is essentially omnipotent, omniscient,
morally perfect, and is the creator of all other concrete beings if
there are any others. I will call such an entity a 1-god. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Type 2</B>: An agent E is a
god of type 2 if and only if E essentially has great power, knowledge
and moral goodness, and she is the creator of all other concrete
beings that coexist with her, if any, and the supreme ruler of her
creation. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">By 'supreme ruler of her
creation' I mean she's always aware of what every one of her
creatures is doing, and she has the knowledge, power and opportunity
to effortlessly prevent any creature from acting, and/or to
annihilate any creature and/or create a different one. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, while she has great power,
knowledge and moral goodness essentially, there is no stipulation
that they can't increase contingently. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I will call such an entity a
2-god. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Type 3:</B> An agent E is a
god of type 3 if and only if she is the creator of all other concrete
beings that coexist with her, and the supreme ruler of her creation.
I will call such an entity a 3-god. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
acknowledge that the definitions given above aren't very precise,
either, but they seem to be good enough for the purposes of this
essay. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
I take no stance here on whether any of the definitions are
equivalent. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="conceivability"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>3.
Metaphysical possibility, conceivability, and visualization. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
question of how to use conceivability as a guide to metaphysical
possibility is a difficult one, but in my assessment, if
conceivability is usable at all, at least the following seems to
hold: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Using the conceivability
criterion as a guide to metaphysical possibility requires stipulating
that a certain scenario obtains, and then trying to find
contradictions in it, after taking into account the (epistemic)
possibility of fixed referents[</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notewater"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
If there is no apparent contradiction in the scenario in question,
then that seems to provide support for the conclusion that the
scenario is metaphysically possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In the case of a given scenario,
generally speaking, the more we try to find a contradiction without
finding it, the more confident in its possibility we're justified to
be. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
a difficulty here is to assess what kind of <I>scenario</I> may
properly be used in this context – i.e., what counts as a
scenario. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
will not try to give a definition of 'scenario', but I will briefly
consider a matter that I think relevant matter, regarding scenarios
defined in <I>modal</I> terms. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="unicorns"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For instance, we can conceive of
</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#unicorn"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>unicorns</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and it seems to me that if the conceivability criterion works at all,
that gives us some reason to believe that unicorns are metaphysically
possible. Someone might suggest that we can also conceive </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that
there is a </I></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that exists necessarily
and who is necessarily bent on preventing the existence of unicorns</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and so allegedly the conceivability criterion would not support the
metaphysical possibility of unicorns because the two scenarios would
cancel each other out. But it seems intuitively plausible to me that
the objection would fail, and further that the conceivability
criterion supports the conclusion that no such necessary being
exists, precisely because scenarios that contain </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#unicorn"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>unicorns</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
are conceivable. </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notespecified"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[2]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
suggestion to explain that difference and other examples would be as
follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In order to use the
conceivability criterion as a guide to metaphysical possibility, the
scenarios we try to conceive of should not be defined in modal terms.
That includes the definition of the properties of the entities that
exist in the scenarios in question. So, if a hypothesis H includes
such modal terms, the conceivability criterion would support its
<I>impossibility</I> if we're able to conceive of a scenario S
without modal terms in its definition and which contradicts H. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
would appear to explain the unicorns example, in which the
conceivability of the scenario stipulating that there are unicorns –
which contains no such claims – would provide evidence against
the hypothesis </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that
there is a </I></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that exists necessarily
and who is necessarily bent on preventing the existence of unicorns</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">An
alternative suggestion would not exclude scenarios defined in modal
terms, but would hold that in case of conflict, a scenario without
such terms prevails. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Another
alternative suggestion would be that in the case of </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#unicorns"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>unicorns</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
we're able to </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>visualize</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
them, but that's not true of the hypothesis </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that
there is a </I></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that exists necessarily
and who is necessarily bent on preventing the existence of unicorns,
</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and that is what makes
the difference, rather than whether the </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenarios
are defined in modal terms. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
that note, and more generally, a contentious point is whether being
able to <I>visualize</I> a scenario is required for conceiving of it,
in the sense that is relevant here – i.e., as a guide to
metaphysical possibility -, or at least provides a stronger criterion
than conceivability without visualization. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We're
never or almost never able to <I>fully </I>visualize a scenario, so
the issue is whether partial visualization is required, and to which
degree we need to be able to visualize a scenario in order to use the
conceivability criterion. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's
a difficult matter, but personally, I'm rather skeptical of the view
that conceivability plus visualization is a better guide to
metaphysical possibility than conceivability without visualization –
i.e., just stipulating a scenario and finding no contradiction, after
taking into account the (epistemic) possibility of fixed referents[</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notewater"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– for the following reasons: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. When we visualize a being –
or a scenario with one or more beings in it -, what we're doing is
forming a mental image of something that represents the being or
beings in question. But it's not clear to me why our ability to form
a mental image representing a being would be in any way related to
whether the being so represented is metaphysically possible. The same
goes for scenarios that lack a certain being. In particular: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. If </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
scenario is metaphysically possible if it's logically possible after
one counts fixed referents[</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notewater"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but causal properties of actual beings are </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>not
</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">relevant to
metaphysical possibility, then it seems to me that conceivability
without visualization is a good a guide to possibility, and our
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">ability
to form a mental image that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>represents</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
some being or beings would not add anything to it. I will sketch a
very partial account of metaphysical possibility – i.e.,
limited to some scenarios – along those lines </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>later</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3. If
metaphysical possibility depends also on the causal properties of
actual beings – e.g., </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#causalnecessity"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>if
it reduces to causal possibility</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
-, then I see no good reason to think that our ability to visualize
something that represents an object, or our ability to conceive of it
without visualization, for that matter, is related to the matter of
what actual causal properties exist, and so in that case I would be
skeptical of the conceivability criterion in general, with or without
visualization. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In any case, it's not clear to me
why visualization would be an improvement. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4. It's true that without
visualization, there might be a hidden contradiction. However,
visualization is always partial, so hidden contradictions may exist
anyway. Examples of that are contradictory fictional stories
involving time travel, in which we can surely visualize part of the
stories – they're even sometimes on TV -, but we can still find
contradictions between different parts of it. In very complex
stories, we might not be able to easily find a contradiction between
some of the parts we're unable to visualize, or to visualize
together, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">5. I recognize that there might
be good reasons why conceivability plus visualization may turn out to
be a good guide to metaphysical possibility while conceivability
without visualization isn't, but I've not been able to find them,
with the potential exception of hidden contradictions in case they're
significantly more frequent in cases in which there is no
visualization at all, but that's not clear to me, either. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
it seems to me that the previous suggestions based on whether the
scenario is defined in modal terms are more adequate to explain our
intuitions in the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#unicorns"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>unicorns</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
case, and similar ones, and that visualization is probably not an
important factor. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
said, I will not assume that that is the case in this essay, and most
of my objections to theistic arguments from contingency will not rely
on the previous assessments. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">n
the next section, I'll introduce a scenario in which at least partial
visualization appears to be doable – though I'll consider an
objection to that as well -, in order to compare it with theistic
alternatives later. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
will take a look at conceivability criteria again </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#artificial"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>later,
when assessing some evidence</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="somegods"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4. A
difficulty for some </B></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>gods</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>.
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
consider the following scenario: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Malo"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There is an intelligent,
self-aware being, Malo, who brings some other beings into existence. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="sufridores"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Each of those beings (let's call
them 'sufridores') has a mind that is similar to the mind of an
average two-years old human kid. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In particular, a sufridor has an
amount of knowledge and intelligence similar to that of an average
two-years-old kid. Further, he can feel pain to an intensity similar
to the intensity to which an average two-years old kid can feel pain.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, a sufridor never grows
old, never loses consciousness unless a significant portion of his
brain is destroyed, and if his body is damaged – no matter how
badly, and including the brain -, instead of dying he regenerates in
seconds at most, regaining consciousness if he had lost it. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Malo brings sufridores into
existence at a rate of one a year, with the only purpose of torturing
them for fun. He always achieves his goals: he tortures them, and
enjoys that very much. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The mechanism by which </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Malo"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Malo</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
achieves this goal is not important. He might (for instance) make one
computer-operated torture chamber with one sufridor in it per year,
such that the chamber </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">burns
the victim alive from the waist down constantly, or just stimulates
the brain directly, causing a similar amount of pain. But whatever
the mechanism, the point is that Malo always succeeds. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>If</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
there is a possible world W at which Malo tortures </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#sufridores"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>sufridores</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
like that, with n sufridores after n years, it seems there is no
</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
at W, because it's clear that such a being would not create Malo, or
at the very least would not allow him to torture </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#sufridores"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>sufridores</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
like that. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
possible worlds are problematic, we may put it as follows: if a
scenario like that is metaphysically possible, then no </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is metaphysically necessary, since it's not possible that a </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would create such an entity, or at least not possible that she would
allow Malo to do as he pleases. Similarly, if Malo is possible, there
is no necessary </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
and while I personally doubt it's important, it seems to me that the
Malo scenario is partially visualizable; still, a potential objection
to even the partial visualization in the case of Malo would be as
follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We can't
actually visualize suffering. The being that appears to suffer may be
pretending, or it may be a mindless zombie. So, even partial
visualization of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Malo"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Malo</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario is not possible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
objection, if correct, would severely restrict the scope of the
visualization criterion, since – assuming such criterion is a
good guide to metaphysical possibility – it would not allow us
to, say, establish that it's possible for a person to fly like
Superman, since the flying being we visualize might be a mindless
zombie. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, at this point I'm just introducing the </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Malo"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Malo</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario for the
purposes of comparing it with theistic claims about metaphysical
possibility later. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="extending"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>5.
Extending causal and explanatory principles. Some general
considerations. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
common point of contention in the context of arguments from
contingency is whether and/or when to generalize a principle from
familiar situations, objects, etc., to other categories of objects
we're not so familiar with, or even not familiar at all. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems to me that in a number of cases, there are some reasons to be
cautious about extensions to arbitrary categories. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, while our intuitions about, say, time, space, and how
things move work pretty well in daily life, modern physics has taught
us that they do not hold without exception, and there are situations
(e.g., objects moving near black holes, events in the subatomic
realm) in which they don't seem to work well at all. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Modern
science aside, there is perhaps a stronger reason to be cautious when
extending principles to arbitrary categories. For instance, in daily
life, the states of affairs we see (e.g., a state consisting of a
number of people interacting with one another and with the rest of
their environment, etc.), have both internal causes – which are
causal interactions between different things that constitute that
state of affairs – and external causes – which are causes
that are not part of, or members of the state in question. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, if we look at a house standing on a hill, there are causes
of the state consisting of the house standing on the hill that are
external to it – e.g., different stuff in the rest of the Earth
– and causes that are internal to it – like interactions
between different parts of the house. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
we should not extend to any arbitrary category of states of affairs a
principle stating that every state of affairs has an external cause
(allowing states of affairs to be extended arbitrarily in time as
well), since the state of affairs consisting in all concrete objects'
existing, having relations between them, instantiating properties,
etc., only has internal causes. Of course, this is not an actual
exception or anomaly in the causal structure of the world, but simply
the result of our decision to define a state that contains all of the
causes inside it. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
other cases, we may not know whether a certain category contains all
concrete objects – for instance. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given
all that, an alternative may be to extend principles that work in
familiar environments to principles that state that <I>normally</I>,
something obtains in a broader category. Those extensions would put
the burden on a skeptic who accepted the principle but believes that
some particular case might be abnormal. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
alternative may be an epistemically better approach, but even leaving
the issue of the potential vagueness of 'normally' aside, I would say
that one should be careful, as there are a number of difficulties,
and some of them are relevant in the context of arguments from
contingency. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="normalexception"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On that note, a difficulty arises
when two or more extensions from clear cases we observe or
contemplate to arbitrary categories adding the 'normally' condition
would lead to what looks like having to pick between two or more
abnormalities. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, let's consider the following scenario: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We have the following evidence
E<SUB>1</SUB>: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We have observed many objects x
that are in category C<SUB>1</SUB>, and are also in category T<SUB>1</SUB>.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For nearly all x that we know are
in C<SUB>1</SUB>, we also know that they're in T<SUB>1</SUB>: in all
those cases, we have checked that they're in both categories by two
reliable methods. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We do not know that any x is in
C<SUB>1</SUB> but not in T<SUB>1</SUB>, though there might be some x
such that we know x is in C<SUB>1</SUB>, but we have no method so far
to tell whether that particular x is in T<SUB>1</SUB>, other than
generalizations from other cases. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Based on evidence E</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteintuition"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[4]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
we may wish to generalize and assert the following principle: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="NP1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">NP<SUB>1</SUB>: Normally, for all
x such that x is in C<SUB>1</SUB>, x is in T<SUB>1</SUB>. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In a similar fashion, and based
on evidence E<SUB>2</SUB>, we may wish to generalize as follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="NP2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">NP<SUB>2</SUB>: Normally, for all
x such that x is in C<SUB>2</SUB>, x is in T<SUB>2</SUB>. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
let us now suppose that we find an x, say x<SUB>1</SUB>, such that x<SUB>1</SUB>
is in C<SUB>1</SUB>, but we have no direct method (i.e., a method
other than NP<SUB>1</SUB>) to check whether x<SUB>1</SUB> is in T<SUB>1</SUB>,
and moreover, we can tell that <I>if</I> x<SUB>1</SUB> is in T<SUB>1</SUB>,
then there is some y such that y is in C<SUB>2</SUB>, but y is not in
T<SUB>2</SUB>. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">What
should we do? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
following approach might be suggested: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Since x</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is in C</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NP1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NP1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
applies unless there is a </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>specific</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
reason to think otherwise, and NP</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
does not provide a </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>specific</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
reason. Hence, and unless such a specific reason is given, we should
conclude that x</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is in T</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
as well, and thus also conclude that there is some y such that y is
in C</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but y is not in T</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
it seems that that would not be a correct approach, because it would
amount to ignoring or at least improperly assessing evidence E<SUB>2</SUB>,
which is also relevant with regard to whether there are objects that
are in C<SUB>2</SUB> but not in T<SUB>2</SUB>, and which may actually
be much stronger than the evidence E<SUB>1</SUB>, or at least strong
enough to warrant skepticism on the matter. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
my assessment, a correct way to approach the matter would be to keep
in mind that those generalized principles are merely that –
i.e., generalizations from some body of evidence based on familiar
cases to much larger categories – and then justifiably apply
the relevant evidence directly to the case under consideration,
instead of trying to apply any generalized rule or principle. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">An
alternative approach would be to accept that one principle holds
normally, but accept also the evidence used in support of other
principles as evidence for an abnormality. For instance, in the
example </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#normalexception"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>above</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NP1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NP1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would suggest that x</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is in T</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but one would take into consideration that E</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
together with the fact that </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
x</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is in T</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
there would be some y such that y is in C</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
but y is not in T</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
provides evidence for the abnormality of the case of x</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and thus against the application of </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NP1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NP1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
Whether that's enough to warrant skepticism, etc., depends on the
strength of the respective pieces of evidence, so in the end one
assesses the overall evidence. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, as always, the strength of the evidence ought to be
assessed in each particular case – or cases, if we find more
than one -, and it may well be a difficult matter. But the important
point here is that E<SUB>2</SUB> is at least <I>some</I> evidence
against the conclusion that x<SUB>1</SUB> is in T<SUB>1</SUB>, and
its strength should be assessed when assessing whether x<SUB>1</SUB>
is in T<SUB>1</SUB>. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
aside, and on a different note, some principles that involve
generalizations to all possible worlds have another difficulty: at
least to some of us, they appear to be highly counterintuitive<I>. </I></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
example, I would be very willing to affirm that at the actual world,
normally, every macroscopic object of finite volume has an external
cause of its existence. However, I do not see why worlds in which
such objects exist without external causes would be impossible, even
when it comes to familiar objects, like bricks or cats. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of
course, someone may reject the use of possible worlds as a proper
characterization of modality, and/or propose weaker principles,
challenge my assessments, etc., so these matters (e.g., whether to
extend a principle) usually need to be assessed on a case by case
basis. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Leaving
that aside as well, another potentially problematic issue is the
choice of the categories. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, extending a principle from categories such as 'chairs',
'trees', 'cats', etc., to categories like 'planets', 'galaxies',
'black holes', etc., would be an extension from familiar to less
familiar categories, but none of the categories involved contains
<I>modality </I>in their definitions. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's
not clear to me that extensions to categories defined in modal terms
like 'wholly contingent', or 'contingent' are relevantly similar or
equally justified, especially given that </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#propertiesexistence"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>contingency
is not a </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#propertiesexistence"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>property
of things</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
Still, unless otherwise specified, I will not raise this particular
issue in the rest of this essay. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="infinities"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.
Infinities, an infinite past, and some related matters. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this section, I will raise objections to a number of arguments
intended to establish that the past is finite and/or that the past
cannot be infinite, that time cannot be dense, and/or some other
hypotheses. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
reason I address these arguments is that they're relevant in the
context of a number of arguments for contingency. For instance, some
of those arguments, or similar ones, might be raised against
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
or as support for an </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timebegins"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>argument
from the instantiation of properties</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
at least if some of the objections I will raise failed. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
also address these arguments in a reply to the Kalam Cosmological
Argument </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekalam">[5</A>],
in some cases in greater detail.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Before
I go on, I'd like to point out that the hypothesis that time has no
beginning seems to be simpler, in terms of uniformity, than the
hypothesis that it does. If time has no beginning, for every event –
i.e., everything that happens -, there are previous events, and later
events, with no special first event. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="hilbert"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.1.
Hilbert's Hotel</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
first argument I will consider is the 'Hilbert Hotel' argument,
intended to show that an actual infinity is metaphysically
impossible. Based on that, it's argued that an infinite past is
metaphysically impossible.</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepresent"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>6</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepresent"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this section, I will address William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair's
arguments</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>7</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but the same points apply to similar variants of it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to the authors, the 'Hilbert Hotel' argument shows that an actual
infinity is counterintuitive, and based on that, they claim that an
actual infinity is plausibly metaphysically impossible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
Hilbert Hotel is a hotel with a denumerable number of rooms, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notehotel2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notehotel2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>8</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notehotel2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and the authors suggest that it's the actual application of the
concept of infinity to the real world, rather than the consideration
of abstract sets, what brings the counterintuitiveness of an infinity
to one's attention. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Of
course, a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>hotel </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">like
the one </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">they</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
propose is counterintuitive, since (for example) we would never be
able to build it, we wouldn't be able to communicate with the rooms
in real time as in the proposed scenario, etc. However, all of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
particular counterintuitiveness seems to have everything to do with
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">an infinite </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>hotel</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
and nothing to do with an actual infinity.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, the counterintuitiveness claimed by Craig and
Sinclair seems to result from a misunderstanding of the meaning of
the words, and disappears once the claims are clarified. To see this,
let's consider the scenarios they propose as supporting the claim of
counterintuitiveness: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
Craig and Sinclair present a scenario in which all of the rooms are
occupied, and a new guest arrives. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to the authors, somehow that there are no more guests after the
arrival is a problem, or counterintuitive. However, that is not the
case, once it's clear what one means by 'more guests', for the
following reasons: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
the sense of cardinality, there are no more guests after the new
guest arrived than there were before. However, that merely means that
there is a bijection between the set of guests before the new
arrival, and the set of guests after the arrival, which is as clear
as the fact that there is a bijection between the set of positive
integers and the set of positive integers plus zero. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, clearly there is at least one sense in which there
are more guests after the new arrival than there were before, namely
the sense that all of the previous guests are still there, and there
is also a guest who wasn't there before. In terms of sets, the set of
guests before the new guest arrives is strictly contained in the set
of guests after the new guest arrives. All of this is unproblematic. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Of
course, shifting infinitely many guests from one room to the next
would not be doable for any human being, alien</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
from another planet</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">, etc., but that's
not relevant, since </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>if</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
any of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">is
a problem </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">also for the metaphysical
possibility of that hotel, it's clearly a problem for Craig's </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>hotel</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
not for actual </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">infinities in general, as
is clear from the fact that such problems do not affect – for
instance – the </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">hypothesis that
there are infinitely many galaxies</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
which is a live hypothesis in modern science. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition to the previous scenario, Craig and Sinclair consider a
scenario in which infinitely new guests arrive at the desk, and the
proprietor talks to them, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">However,
it may be that the meaning of the word 'desk' is such that it's </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">not
coherent</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> to say that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>infinitely
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">many </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">show
up at the desk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">. But that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">scenario
in which infinitely many guests arrive </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">is
not a condition included in the definition of the Hotel in question,
so </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">if it is an incoherent scenario due
to the meaning of 'desk', that is</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> not
enough to rule</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">out
the possibility of the Hotel</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">On
the other hand, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">if there is nothing in
the meaning of the word 'desk' preventing that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">infinite
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">arrival, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">then
still </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">things like building such a hotel,
or communicating at arbitrarily fast speed with infinitely many
people, etc., look counterintuitive. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">However,
as before, any counterintuitiveness is not a consequence of assuming
an actual infinity, but of assuming the infinite </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>hotel</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
that Craig and Sinclair describe. For instance, also as before, there
seems to be no similar counterintuitiveness in the hypothesis that,
say, there are infinitely many galaxies. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">As
for the number of guests after </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">denumerably
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">many new ones arrive, it's the same as
before the arrival </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>in terms of
cardinality</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">, but again that merely
means that there is a bijection between the set of guests before the
arrival and the set of guests after the arrival, which is as clear as
the fact that there is a bijection between the set of positive
integers and, say, the set of even </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">positive
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">integers. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, there is at least one sense in which there are
infinitely more guests after the arrival, namely, that all of the
guests who were in the hotel before infinitely new ones arrived
remain there, and infinitely many guests who were not in the hotel
before the arrival are in the hotel after the arrival. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">That
is also unproblematic. As long as one keeps in mind what's meant by
'more guests', any counterintuitiveness related to the 'more guests'
issue is gone, and any counterintuitiveness left has to do with the
specific features of an infinite </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>hotel.
</I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Similarly,
if one guest departs, there are as many guests as before in the sense
of cardinality, but there is a sense in which there were more guests
before the departure, namely that all of the guests that are in the
hotel after the departure were in the hotel before the departure, but
there was also one guest before the departure that is no longer in
the hotel after she departed (obviously). In terms of sets, the set
of guests after the departure is strictly contained in the set of
guests before the departure. Once again, all of this is
unproblematic, and any issues related to the number of guests are not
counterintuitive as long as one keeps in mind what one means by 'more
guests'. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now,
if denumerably many guests leave, whether there are as many as before
in the sense of cardinality depends on which set we remove, just as
we can subtract an infinite set A from the set of natural numbers N
such that N\A has the same cardinality as N (e.g., A:={x: x is a
prime natural number}), or subtract a set B such that N\B is finite
(e.g., B:={x: x is a natural number greater than 1}). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
before, there are no problems in terms of how many guests there are,
or in terms of subtractions. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig
raises other scenarios based on Hilbert's Hotel, but they're handled
in a similar fashion. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Once
it's clear what one means by 'more guests', etc., it should also be
clear that any of the issues raised </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">by
Craig vanish, and any counterintuitiveness left is not the result of
the fact that the scenario involves an actual infinity, but of the
fact that it involves an infinite </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>hotel,
with certain specific properties</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
like infinitely people arriving at once, a proprietor communicating
with and moving infinitely many guests, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
in short, the 'Hilbert Hotel' argument is not a good argument against
the possibility of actual infinities. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
Hotel itself appears counterintuitive, though it's not clear at all
that it's metaphysically impossible. For instance, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
the '</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>co</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>nceivability
without visualization</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>'</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>
criterion</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is a good guide to metaphysical possibility, then it seems the
Hilbert Hotel is </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">plausibly
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">metaphysically
possible, even if one or more of Craig's scenarios might be
impossible, depending on the meaning of some words like 'desk'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any event, even if Hilbert's Hotel is impossible because of
particular features of the Hotel, that would not give us any good
reason to think that all other infinities are impossible, like
infinitely many galaxies, or – more relevantly in this context
– infinitely many past events, and Hilbert's Hotel provides no
good reason to suspect that those scenarios aren't possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="reapers"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.2.
Grim reapers.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
'grim reapers' argument has different forms, and it may be offered in
support of the hypothesis that actual infinities are impossible,
and/or that infinite temporal regress is impossible, or that time is
necessarily discrete, among others. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
conclusion that time is necessarily discrete would not appear to be a
problem for </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but the impossibility of infinite temporal regress – and, of
course, of any actual infinity – would be so. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#reapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
subsection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
I will focus on some of Alexander Pruss' arguments. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[9]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Briefly,
the scenario is as follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Fred is
alive at t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>0 </SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">–
11.00 am. in Pruss' scenario -, and then, there is a grim reaper
(say, GR</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">),
set to kill Fred at t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">=(t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>0</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">+(1/n)
seconds), if Fred is alive. Fred cannot survive a grim reaper attack,
and nothing else possibly kills him. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">At
first glance, there are some difficulties that might affect our
intuitions and assessments, such as: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. Death is a gradual process,
and also the words that we use to describe the world around us are
imprecise. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. Modern science still does not
have a way of handling arbitrarily short amounts of time, and our
regular intuitions about time and space do not seem to work well when
certain quantum effects are involved. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
let's say that difficulties of that sort are resolved. Then, there is
another potential difficulty: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Pruss'
'grim reapers' scenario is strictly logically impossible, but an
infinite regress of events is not. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">In
other words, assuming a scenario in which there is an infinite
regress of events, a contradiction does not follow. Instead, what
would be impossible </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>in that scenario</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
would be Pruss' construction. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">I
suppose there</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> might </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">be
a way around that potential difficulty, by rewording the argument as
an argument forcing us to choose between different intuitions</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
though, so let's leave that aside for now as well. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="discrete "></A><A NAME="discretetime"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>6.2.1.
Discrete time.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Pruss
distinguishes between the following two types of discrete time. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="rigiddiscrete"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. Time is rigidly discrete if
there necessarily is a minimum temporal unit. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Aristotelian"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. Time is discrete in an
Aristotelian sense if there are in fact finitely many moments of
time, but each interval can be subdivided infinitely many times.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
his version of the grim reapers argument, Pruss is assuming that time
is not rigidly discrete. He argues against rigid discreteness based
on relativity, and on Zeno's Stadium. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
don't find Zeno's Stadium to be a persuasive argument against rigid
discreteness, but I won't address the matter here. I will just point
out that the Stadium is at least a contentious matter. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
for relativity arguments, they seem to be based on the usual
interpretation of time in physics, which holds that time is relative,
and is based on empirical evidence. That would not be a problem on
its own, in my assessment, since I don't see any good reasons to
think that our observations are illusory and metaphysical time is
actually absolute. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
temporal relativity seems to be problematic for theism. Let's
consider the following scenario: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There are astronauts on Mars, and
one of them prays to the creator, asking her to establish a
communication between her (i.e., the astronaut) and her loved ones on
Earth, with no more than a, say, five seconds delay (or five minutes,
for that matter). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then,
it seems to me that even if there were a creator of the universe and
she were listening, she would not have the power to grant the request
even if she wanted to, since that would seem to result in paradoxes,
resulting from sending information faster than the speed of light. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
someone might suggest that, perhaps, metaphysical time is relative
but in a way very different from what modern physics proposes, but if
one leaves aside modern physics, it seems one also leaves aside any
support for the hypothesis that time is relative. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
particular, without the speed of light limitation, there would be no
support for the hypothesis that time is relative, since we would be
leaving aside a crucial part of the empirical basis for the
hypothesis that time is relative.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, someone might suggest that
physical time is relative, but not metaphysical time. But what
matters in this context is metaphysical time, and as long as it's not
relative, it seems relativity provides no evidence against rigidly
discrete time. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
potential consequences of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">accepting
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">relativity
for theism aside – which, as a non-theist, I would not find
problematic -, l</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">et's
grant that time is not</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#rigiddiscrete"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>rigidly
discrete</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
for</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
the moment</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and let's consider Aristotelian discreteness. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Aristotelian"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>definition
of Aristotelian discreteness</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
given by Pruss </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">might
give</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
the impression that it implies </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">immediately
that there is no infinite temporal regress of any kind – since
it's stipulated that there are only finitely many moments -, but that</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would not be a proper interpretation of Aristotelian discreteness,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">which
is clear by the fact that he argues then against infinite regress
under Aristotelian-discrete time rather than just point out that it's
immediately implied by the definition, and even more clearly by his
proposed specification of Aristotelian discreteness. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>9</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To
simplify, we</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
may consider the following alternative definition</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Aristotelian2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">3.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Time
is discrete in the Aristotelian-2 sense if and only if</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
necessarily, there are</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
finitely many moments </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of
time </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>between
two given ones</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but any temporal interval </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
possibly </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">subdivided
in smaller subintervals. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Alternatively,
we may consider Pruss' suggestion.</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>9</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
I will use the definition above, but the reply I offer works equally
under Pruss' suggestion. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Aristotelian2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Aristotelian-2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
discreteness is clearly incompatible with an infinite regress of
events plus a time at which Fred is alive </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>before
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that
infinite regress. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Thus,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">if
there were an infinite regress of events under </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Aristotelian2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Aristotelian-2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
discreteness, that would be an infinite sequence of events without
any time prior to the whole sequence, and so Pruss' argument from
grim reapers would not apply to it, since Fred could not be alive
before the sequence. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hence,
Pruss' argument is not applicable if time is discrete in the
Aristotelian sense.</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, Pruss argument is also not applicable if time is
rigidly discrete. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[9]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx">So,
it seems that if the argument under consideration were successful, it
would work as an argument against </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx">the
hypothesis </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><I>that
time is possibly dense</I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><I>.
</I></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx">Different
arguments would still be required to rule out an infinite past if
time is </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx">necessarily
not dense</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx">I
will consider one argument given by Pruss under </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx">Aristotelian-discrete
time </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#aristoteliandiscreteness">later</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="reapershotel"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.2.2.
Grim reapers, infinite regress, and the Hilbert Hotel. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to Pruss, if an infinite temporal regress were possible, then the
Hilbert Hotel would be possible. His argument from infinite temporal
regress to the Hilbert Hotel holds that assuming that an infinite
series of events going backwards in time is possible, each event
could be the creation of one room, and no room gets destroyed. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Also,
he argues that if Hilbert's Hotel were possible, it would be possible
for there to be one reaper produced in each room, and it would be
possible for the Hotel's staff to set the reaper in room #n to kill
at t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
Pruss claims that if the Hilbert Hotel were possible, then some other
things would be possible, and a contradiction would follow. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet,
the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#hilbert"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Hilbert
Hotel</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
on its own, appears not to be contradictory. If so, clearly it does
not entail a contradiction. So, Pruss appears to be using the Hilbert
Hotel </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>plus</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
some criterion or criteria for metaphysical possibility, in order to
derive a contradiction. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet,
Pruss does not say what criteria he's using, or why he considers that
criteria reliable, which obscures the matter considerably. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
apparently, Pruss is not using the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>'conceivability
without visualization'</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
criterion, because that criterion seems to support the possibility of
the Hilbert Hotel, but obviously not the possibility of a
contradiction. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Also,
he's apparently not using </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>only</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
a criterion that requires visualization, due to the infinities
involved. Moreover, it seems that in order to establish the
possibilities of each grim reaper, he's not even using a
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">visualization criterion combined with
other criteria, since he says that the grim reapers need not be
physical entities, but might be non-physical entities with the
specified causal powers</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">and
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">even though</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
the meaning of 'non-physical' is unclear, given usual examples, it
seems plausible that they might not </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">be
visible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
even ruling out the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>'conceivability
without visualization'</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
criterion for the sake of the argument, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">given
that Pruss does not specify which criterion or criteria he is using,
let alone defend them, we may point out the following: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. It's not
clear that if an infinite temporal regress were possible, it would be
possible to make rooms like that. In particular, if metaphysical
possibility reduced to causal possibility – as Pruss suggests
elsewhere</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>10</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
though I'm not convinced </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">-,
there would seem to be no good reason to suspect that just because an
infinite temporal regress is possible, there will be some entity with
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
power to bring about those rooms. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. Even if the rooms were brought
about, it's not clear that they would last for long enough for there
to be infinitely many of them at any time. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">3. Even if
infinitely many rooms at once were possible, it's not clear that that
would be a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>hotel</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.
For instance, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">it might be possible that
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">infinitely many rooms exist, yet the
speed of light limits </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">communication
between them. In particular, for every room, only finitely many ones
would be </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">within its light cone. In that
case, there would be infinitely many rooms, but they would not
constitute a hotel, or anything that would work as required in this
argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4. As suggested above, it's not
clear that the rooms and/or the staff and/or anyone else would have
the power to make grim reapers with the power to check whether Fred
is alive from an arbitrarily large distance, and kill him instantly,
or almost instantly. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">5. Also, it's not clear that the
staff or anyone else would have the power to make devices that
properly measure arbitrarily short temporal intervals, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">6. In particular, it's not clear
that all of those things would be possible <I>together</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
if an infinite temporal regress were possible. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps,
Pruss is using a criterion or a set of criteria for assessing
metaphysical possibility that is broad enough to allow him to
establish that all of that would be possible if an infinite regress
of events were possible. But the questions remain: which criterion or
criteria is he using, and why should we accept </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">them?
Moreover, why should we reject the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>'conceivability
without visualization'</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
criterion? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, given the broadness of whatever criterion or criteria Pruss
is using, we may reason as follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="BIC"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">It seems
clear that an infinite </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>forward
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">sequence of events {E(n)} is
possible. That would not even require an actual infinity, but merely
a potential one. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="BIS"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, let's consider the following
scenario – which we may call the 'Boundless Innocent Suffering'
(BIS) scenario: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's start with some fixed year,
which we may number '1'. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="En"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For n > 2, the event E(n) is
as follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. E(n) begins at the beginning
of the year n!, and ends at the beginning of the year 1+2*n!</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. In the
first year of E(n), 1 torture chamber with 1 </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#sufridores"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>sufridor</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in it (say, Bob(n)) is produced. Producing it does not need to take
the whole year. It might take a second, a minute, a </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">month,
etc., but in any case, by the end of the first year, the torture
chamber with Bob(n) in it is fully functional. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c. Since the torture chamber with
Bob(n) in it is ready, and until the end of E(n), Bob(n) is burned
alive from the waist down, allowed to regenerate in a few seconds,
then burned alive again, and so on. So, this torture lasts for at
least n! years. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">So,
for instance, Bob(3) is horribly tortured for at least 6 years, from
the year 7 to the year 13, Bob (10</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>1000000!!!!!!!</SUP></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">)
is horribly tortured for at least ((10</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>1000000!!!!!!!</SUP></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">)!)years,
from the year (1+</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">((10</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>1000000!!!!!!!</SUP></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">)!))
to the year (1+2*((10</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>1000000!!!!!!!</SUP></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">)!)),
and so on. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems clear to me that we can tell, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
if the BIS scenario is possible, no </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god
or 2-god is necessary</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but the construction seems to be similar to the one offered by Pruss
in his scenario. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
the previous scenario would only a problem for theism, but similar
scenarios would also be a problem for other potentially necessary
agents, even if not morally good ones, as long as they're defined as
having a similar amount of power and some specific priority
necessarily, instead of doing what's morally right. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
who essentially has some priority to – eventually – bring
about </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that
R does not </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>obtain</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
for some R, would be ruled out by stipulating a scenario in which R
happens repeatedly and for </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">unbounded
periods, as long as we can tell that R is possible for a certain
period, and then extending it. That would seem to be no broader a
criterion for metaphysical possibility than any criterion or set of
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">criteria
Pruss may be using. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">All
that said, I have to </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">admit</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
that the amount of suffering that actually exists in the world is
much more than enough for me to conclude that there is no </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god
or 2-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
After years of reflecting on the matter, I don't find any theodicy
remotely persuasive – let alone a 'mysterious reasons' argument
-, but I suppose some of those who think otherwise </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>might</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
also say that the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario is compatible with a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god
or a 2-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
it seems to me that the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario may well be too much even for most of those who reject
arguments from suffering in the case of the real world, in particular
because in the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, there is no silver lining. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
never ends, and the torture keeps getting longer and longer.So, while
it's true that the suffering of each victim </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>might
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">end
(that's not specified in the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, so the torture might or might not continue after the
stipulated period), for any natural number n and for any time t,
there are more than n victims still to come in the future, each of
which will be tortured for more than n years. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Leaving
aside potential difficulties the criterion or criteria used by Pruss
as a guide to metaphysical possibility and/or for theism, one may
still point out that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>even
if </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
Hotel with the reapers, mechanisms, etc., are possible, that would
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>not</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
entail that Fred cannot die unless he's killed by a reaper. Perhaps,
for all we know, Fred's life extends through an interval [u,t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">0</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]
or (u,t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">0</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]
for some u prior to t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">0</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
the reapers would have no one to kill, resulting in no contradiction.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
that note, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Pruss
suggests</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[9]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
stipulating that there is nothing in the world that could kill Fred
except </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">for
an individual grim reaper. Apparently, under that stipulation, Fred
couldn't kill himself of die on his own of natural causes, either. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
there seems to be no good reason to suspect that if an infinite
temporal regress is possible, then it's possible that nothing but a
grim reaper can possibly kill Fred in that scenario. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">For
that matter, we may suggest the following:
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000">i. If a finite pas</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">t
is</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> possible, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">then
it would be possible that nothing but a grim reaper can possibly kill
Fred. Then, if a finite past is possible, there would be no necessary
</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god,
2-god, </U></SPAN></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>or
3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></A>, <FONT COLOR="#000000">and in particular
all usual forms of theism would be false. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">But
since whether a finite past is possible has nothing to do with which
entities could possibly kill Fred, for that matter we may suggest, in
addition to i.
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000">ii. If an infinite past is possible, then it
would be possible that nothing but a grim reaper can </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">possibly
kill Fred. Then, if an infinite past is possible, there would be no
necessary </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god,
2-god, or 3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">, and in
particular all usual forms of theism would be false. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000">From
that, we may conclude that there is no necessary </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god,
2-god, or 3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">, and in
particular all usual forms of theism </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">are</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
false. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000">Of
course, that wouldn't be a good argument against theism, since we
would just be stipulating for no good reason </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">whatsoever
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">that nothing could possibly kill Fred</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
in those cases</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">. But Pruss' argument has
the same problem – namely, t</FONT>he suggested stipulation
would be unwarranted, and thus this 'grim reapers' argument would
fail even if we granted all of the previous claims about the
possibility of the hotel, the grim reapers, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="placers"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.3.
Grim placers and/or grim signalers.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this subsection, I will address a variant of the argument from grim
reapers, defended by Robert Koons </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
in which </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">each</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
grim reaper, or rather grim placer, check</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
whether there is some Fred particle at </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
specified </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">location,
and if there isn't, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">he
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">place</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
one at some specific location. Otherwise, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">he
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">keep</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
the particle where it is. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to Koons, his argument shows that time is not dense, and that there
is no infinite past. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
disagree with that assessment, and furthermore, I will argue that
some of his assumptions may be used, in combination with no less
plausible ones, to make an argument against usual forms of
philosophical monotheism. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="possibleplacer"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.3.1.
Possibility of a grim placer. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Among
other hypotheses, the argument assumes the following: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">1. There is
a region R of duration d in a possible world W, and a grim placer
GP</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>d</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
such that GP</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>d</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">has the intrinsic power and disposition
to do as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">a. If there
is no Fred particle at any distance y<d from a fixed plane P, then
GP</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>d</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
creates and </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">places a Fred particle at a
designated location exactly d meters from P. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">b.
Otherwise, GP</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>d</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
keeps any Fred particle that is closer to plane P in its position. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's
not clear to me what criterion Koons is using, as a guide to
metaphysical possibility, in order to assert that one such scenario
is possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems to me that Koons probably isn't using a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
criterion like the one I suggest </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>below</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">because
such a criterion would </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>seem
to lead to the conclusion that there is no concrete being that exists
necessarily</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
contradicting </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#mereologicalissues"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Koons'
stance on that matter</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Also,
it seems to me that we can't visualize the scenario, either. For
instance, a requirement of the scenario is that the location of the
particle is at </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>exactly </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">p
meters from a certain plane. But it seems to me that we can't
visualize anything with that kind of precision</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
perhaps, Koons is using some other kind of conceivability criterion
that is not broad enough to be a problem for Koons' position, but
broader than a criterion that requires visualization. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
that raises the following issues: which criterion is that, and why
should one accept that particular criterion as a good guide to
metaphysical possibility? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems to me that the burden to explain and defend the criterion in
question would be on those who make claims of metaphysical
possibility based on it. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
in any case, intuitively, it seems to me that the hypothesis that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>one</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#En"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>E(n)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is no less plausibly possible than Koons' </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleplacer"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>assumption</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
above. So, I would be inclined to grant </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleplacer"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>point
1.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
for the sake of the argument, but also assume that at least for some
n</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">0</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
E(n</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">0</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">)
is possible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
it </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>might
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">still
happen that Koons uses a criterion to assess metaphysical possibility
that blocks all of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#En"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>E(n)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but allows </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleplacer"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>assumption
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
However, it's hard to see what kind of criteri</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">on</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would have that effect, without being ad-hoc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any event, as before, I would say </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">anyone
using such a criterion would have the burden of stating it clearly
and defending the claim that that criterion is a good guide to
metaphysical possibility. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">lternatively,
we may grant </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleplacer"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>point
1.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
for the sake of the argument, without even assuming that any of the
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#En"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>E(n)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is possible, but assuming instead that the following scenario –
which we may call the 'horror for eight minutes (HEM) scenario –
is possible: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="EMT"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">An entity
with a mind, capability for suffering, regeneration, etc., similar to
those of a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#sufridores"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>sufridor</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
suffers horrible, tremendous pain – like being burned alive
from the waist down, without any </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">decrease
in pain – for </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>eight
minutes</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
someone might </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>still
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">reject
the metaphysical possibility of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#EMT"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>HEM</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
while claiming that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleplacer"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>point
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>,</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">obtains
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">but
that also put a</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">n
even heavier</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
burden on the person making such a claim</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="compresstime"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.3.2.
Compressibility of spacetime. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Another
assumption of the argument – though this one is an assumption
for a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>reductio – </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">can
be stated </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. If there is some object A with
an intrinsic property Q in a region R of finite duration d in a
possible world W, then: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. There is a function f from the
parts of R to the parts of some region R' of some possible world W',
such that f is topology-preserving and compresses time and space by
half. For instance, if the duration of R is d, the duration of R' is
d/2</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. There is a counterpart A' of A
and a counterpart Q' of Q, such that A' intrinsically has property Q'
in R'. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Point
2. is used for a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>reductio</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
against temporal density. Koons argues that 2. is reasonable under
the assumption that time is dense. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
there is an intrinsic metric of time, it seems to me that we don't
know whether some properties aren't compressible, whether some
processes require at least some amount of time, etc., even if time is
dense. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="DST"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But let's
say that that is not the case, and let's grant </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#compresstime"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
for the sake of the argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Then,
it seems to me that similarly, and regardless of whether time is
dense, we may accept a principle of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>decompressibility
of time, </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">or DT, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">which
is at least equally intuitive, and </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">which
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">we can s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">tate
as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2'. If there is some spatial and
temporally bounded region R of duration d in a possible world W, then
there is a duplicate R' of R in possible world W', which contains
counterparts of every object in R with counterparts of its intrinsic
properties, but expands time by a factor of two. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">DT
takes no stance on whether space is also expanded. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
may be argued that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#DST"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>DT</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is in a sense stronger than Koons' principle, so a more tailored
approach might be required for an atheistic argument, but if we
assume that no properties are incompressible, no processes require a
minimum amount of time, etc., and we accept </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#compresstime"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
for that reason, it seems to me that it's equally plausible that a
bounded region is possible temporally expanded by a factor of two. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="longtorture"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But if one
accepts </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#DST"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>DT</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleplacer"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>plus</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#en0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>E(n</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#en0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#en0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
then there are possible duplicates of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#en0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>E(n</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#en0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#en0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of arbitrarily long duration, provided that the properties of the
torture chambers and the sufridores are intrinsic to the scenarios,
which we may stipulate</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">just
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">as
Koons stipulates that the properties of the reapers are </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">intrinsic</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
Those duplicates wouldn't be exactly the other </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>E(n)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
for n different from n</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">0</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but the fact is that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">there
would be </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>arbitrarily
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>long
possible scenarios of sufridores getting tortured</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Alternatively,
even without assuming that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#en0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>E(n</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#en0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#en0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is possible, if the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#EMT"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>HEM</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario is possible, a relevantly similar result is achieved:
namely, there would be </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>arbitrarily
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>long
possible scenarios of </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>sufridores
or similar beings suffering</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
horribly. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
potential objection to those scenarios of horrible extended suffering
would be that, as time expands, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">so
do </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
mental processes of the victims</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
which </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">become
slower, so they do not experience any increased suffering. However,
given that the mind, capability </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">for</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
suffer</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">ing</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
etc., of the victims is </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>intrinsic</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to the individual scenarios</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– rather than, say, slower functioning minds -, it's not clear
that this objection would succeed. It would depend on what counts as
'intrinsic', and that's unclear. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">let's
say for the sake of the argument that all</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
such </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">minds
would also </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">become
slower in that way, in the case of expansion of time</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
so this objection </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">to
the extended suffering scenarios described above </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
successful. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Even
then</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
there </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">are
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">alternative
way</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of constructing similar scenarios</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
For instance, one such alternative can be constructed </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">if
the following premises are accepted</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">:
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
n=1, there is </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">possible
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">like
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#EMT">HEM</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
which lasts for a minute. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b.
Plausibly, if for some k, there is a possible scenario </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">like
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">HEM
that lasts for </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">k
minutes, then there is another possible scenario like </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">HEM</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but which lasts for k+1 minutes. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">How
plausible are a. and b.? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Intuitively,
I would say</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>
at least</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
no less plausible than Koons' premises. Pa. seems quite clear, and Pb
only requires finite additions (i.e., there is no assumption of a
scenario in which one such being suffers </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">forever).
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Granted,
someone might either </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">reject</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
Pa., or accept Pa but hold that</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
perhaps, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
is some number K, such that</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">for
every k</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">≤</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">K,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>possibly</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#EMT"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">an
entity of the relevant kind undergoes the kind of suffering described
in the scenarios</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
for k minutes</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">but
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>necessarily</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
no such entity undergoes such suffering for K+1 minutes</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
seems intuitively odd. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">assuming
that </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
kind of objection </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
the proposed scenarios of extended suffering </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">succeeds,
it seems plausible to me that the same kind of objection may
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">successfully
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">be
raised to the principles proposed by Koons, </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">since
they're </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">no
more intuitively plausible than Pa and Pb. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet
still, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">also</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
assuming counterintuitively and for the sake of the argument that
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">while
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">all
objections to</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
the principles proposed by Koons </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">fail</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Pa
is true</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
but</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Pb
is not and there is such necessarily maximum number of minutes K,
then we can still construct some scenarios that are very problematic
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">for
theism</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
especially when combined with Koons' principles. For instance, one
such scenario </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">can
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">be
constructed as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">All
of space </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
time </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">can
be covered by </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">non-overlapping
spatiotemporal regions of equal size that are spatially cubic and
have a fixed </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">temporal
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">duration
K. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
let's consider a possible world W at which there is a spatially cubic
spatio-temporal region C(W) of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">finite
size</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#EMT"> with one of those
beings suffering</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
for K minutes. We may consider then similar regions in </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">other
worlds, but s</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">patio-temporally
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moved</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
so that the regions are not overlapping </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">(which
seems obviously possible), and then apply </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#IP">infinitary
patchwork</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
covering all of space and time at some world W'. </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">none
of those entities </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">suffers
for more than K minutes </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">at</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">W',
the fact is that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">all
of time and space is covered by that</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
kind of torment</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
We may also stipulate that there are no o</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">ther
agents </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">spatially
located in any of the regions, so that the whole of space and time is
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">basically
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">covered
with horrible suffering and nothing else. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="infinitary"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.3.3.
Infinitary patchwork.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
key principle of Koons' argument is what he calls "infinitary
patchwork"</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoonsreapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>11</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>]</U></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
(or IP), and which can be put as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
suppose the following conditions obtain: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="IP"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">IP(1): </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>W
= </B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">{W</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">}
is a countable series of possible worlds, and </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>R=</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">{R</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">},
is a countable series of regions of those worlds, such that for all
n, R</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is a region of W</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">IP(2): f is
a function from </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>R
</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">into
the class</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteset"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteset"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteset"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of spatio-temporal regions of some world W, such that f preserves the
metric and topological structure of each of the R</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">n</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and such that, if n≠m, then f(R</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">n</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">)
does not overlap f(R</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">m</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">).
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then,
there is a possible world W', and an isomorphism g from the
spatio-temporal regions of W to the spatio-temporal regions of W',
such that the following obtains: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">IP(C): The
part of W</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
within R</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is exactly like the part of W' within g(f(R</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">).
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
grant </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#IP"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>IP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
for the sake of the argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
as long as the minds of entities with intrinsic mental properties do
not become slower as suggested in the previous subsection,</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">it
seems that from the assumption that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#en0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>E(n</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#en0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#en0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is possible, plus the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#DST"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>DT</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
principle, a scenario relevantly similar to </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
follows at once, since for the reasons </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#longtorture"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>given</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>the
</U></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#compresstime"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>previous
subsection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
there would be worlds W(n) and regions R(n) of those worlds with
arbitrarily long periods of such terrible torment, and then one can
send each of them to a world W via a function that preserves the
topological and metric properties of each of them, and then patch
them together into </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">another
possible world W' via infinitary patchwork. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Alternatively,
given infinitary patchwork plus </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#DST"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>DT</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>
</U></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#EMT"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>HEM</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, it follows that there is a </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">possible
world where sufridores or similar beings suffer horrible pain –
like being burned alive from the waist down – for arbitrarily
long periods, and where that situation goes on forever. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
alternatively, if such minds would become slower, there are other
scenarios that seem to work, as </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">described
in the previous subsection. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
my assessment, those conclusions would be a defeater for a claim that
there is a necessary</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgod"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
or </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>a
necessary </U></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgod"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
or generally for any usual form of theism. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
that's only a problem for usual variants of theism, but we still need
to address the question of whether Koons' argument shows that time
isn't dense. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">It
seems that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">even </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">all
of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">Koons' </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">assumptions,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">plus the assumptions he uses in order to
attempt a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>reductio</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>still</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
do not present any problem for temporal density, as the following
scenarios show:</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="S1"></A><A NAME="nocontra"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">First,
let's consider the following scenario S</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">:
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">1. There is
a denumerable sequence of temporal intervals {I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">=[t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n+1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">)},
for all natural numbers n. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">2. Each
interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
has length 10</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>-n</SUP></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">3. During
interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
or at least during the last portion of it, there is a Fred particle
at the designated position 10</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>-n
</SUP></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">meters from the designated plane
P. There is no other Fred particle during interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
scenario does not contain any grim placers, but it's a scenario that
one could get by applying </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitary"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>infinitary
patchwork</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to each of the intervals. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Second,
let's add grim placers; now, the scenario S</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>2
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">is: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">1. There is
a denumerable sequence of temporal intervals {I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">=[t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n+1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">)},
for all natural numbers n. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">2. Each
interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
has length 10</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>-n</SUP></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">3. During
interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
or at least during the last portion of it, there is a Fred particle
at the designated position 10</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>-n
</SUP></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">meters from the designated plane
P. There is no other Fred particle during interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">4. During
interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
there is a grim placer #n, GP</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That's
a scenario containing infinitely many grim placers. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Each
grim placer GP</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
places the particle at the designated position, or the particle is
there for another </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">reason, so the grim
placer has no job to do.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="S3"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone might suggest that there
is a problem if the intervals are open in the direction of the past,
and closed in the direction of the future. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">However,
that wouldn't seem to be a problem, either, as the following scenario
S</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>3</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
shows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">1. There is
a sequence of temporal intervals {I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">=(t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n+1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">]}</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">2. Each
interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
has length 10</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>-n</SUP></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">3. During
interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
or at least during the last portion of it, there is a Fred particle
at the </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">designated position 10</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUP>-n
</SUP></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">meters from the designated plane
P. There is no other Fred particle during interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">4. During
interval I</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
there is a grim placer #n, GP</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>n</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might add another condition to the definition of grim placers,
demanding that they must act </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">instantaneously,
and suggesting that that would be a problem for each of the
individual scenarios. </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
in that case any problem in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#S3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>S</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#S3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">wouldn't
be related to the infinitary patchwork principle, but it would be a
problem with each of the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>individual</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenarios used for the patchwork. But then, that would not work as an
argument against temporal density, which presupposes that the
individual scenarios are all possible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
it seems that Koons' 'grim placers' argument does not work as an
argument against temporal density, even leaving aside any atheistic
parallel arguments. Similarly, they don't work as an argument against
an infinite past, either, since similar counterexamples succeed. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="signaler"></A><A NAME="signalers"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.3.4.
Grim signalers.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons
actually considers an objection </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#nocontra"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>like
the one I just raised</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and correctly points out that what is required is that some signals
persist from one grim reaper, grim placer, or grim signaler, to the
next.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
he reformulates the argument without any particles, and replacing the
grim placers with grim signalers. It's essential to a grim signaler
to have the power of receiving a signal from a previous grim
signaler, and to have the power to send a signal to a successor. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons
considers a potential objection, based on the suggestion that the
regions would overlap, and rejects it, positing adjoining
non-overlapping intervals. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
adjoining non-overlapping intervals aren't good enough. The power to
send the signal to the next signaler is akin to the power to make the
particle last </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>into
the next interval</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
seems to defeat </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
argument, because the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">regions
that are being patched </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">would
have to overlap</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and/</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">or
the properties of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
signalers would not be intrinsic</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">despite
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">'
claims</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
so the principle of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#IP">infinitary
patchwork</A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would not be applicable</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>the
</U></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitary"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>atheistic
parallel argument</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>s
I gave above</U></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
do not have that problem</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Shandy"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.4.
Tristram Shandy.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Another
o</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">ne
of Craig and Sinclair's arguments against an infinite past is based
on the story of Tristram Shandy. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>7</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Shandy
is a man who writes his autobiography, at a rather slow pace: it
takes Shandy a year to write the events of a single day. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to Craig and Sinclair, we should reject an infinite past because it's
obviously coherent to write an autobiography at that pace, but if
Shandy had been writing from infinity, that would lead to
absurdities. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
what is obviously coherent is to write such an autobiography <I>starting
at a specific day.</I> </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, to write an autobiography counting from infinity is
logically impossible.</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteshandy"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteshandy"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To
see why this is impossible, let's suppose otherwise, let's suppose
the number of past years has the order type of the non-positive
integers, and let's enumerate the past years in the following way:
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteleap"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>14</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteleap"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Last
year is 0, the previous year is -1, and so on. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, if this year is 2012, then 2011 is 0, 2010 is -1, 2009 is
-2, and so on. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now,
let F be a function from the set of non-positive integers into itself
such that for all non-negative integers r and n, F(-r) = -n if and
only if -n is the most recent year Shandy wrote about during the year
-r. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, if, in the year -2000, Shandy wrote about a day in the year
-300001 and about a day in the year -300000, then F(-2000) = -300000.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given
the rate at which Shandy writes, and given also that, when writing
his autobiography, Shandy never writes about his future, we have the
following conditions: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. F(-r) ≤ -r. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. F(-r-365) = F(-r) - 1. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">By
induction: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3. F(-r-2*365) = F(-r-365-365) =
F(-r-365) - 1=F(-r) - 2</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4. F(-r-k*365) = F(-r) - k, for
all non-negative k. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
in particular, taking r=0. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">F(0)
- k = F(-k*365) ≤ -k*365. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hence,
for every natural number k, </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">5. 364*k ≤ -F(0)</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That's
contradictory, as easily seen by taking (for instance) k = 1 +
(F(0)*F(0)). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
the Tristram Shandy scenario fails to show that infinitely many past
years are impossible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
other words, what's logically impossible is Tristram Shandy scenario
itself, but that does not have anything to do with whether an
infinite past is possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Craig
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">and Sinclair </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">acknowledge
that the scenario is logically impossible, yet claim that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>because
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">it </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">seems
"obviously" coherent to write one's autobiography at a rate
of one day per year, it seems to them that the problem is the
infinite past. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
have to confess that I find that reply puzzling. Clearly, the task of
writing one's autobiography at a rate of one day per year 'from
infinity' is logically impossible, and so not coherent. I honestly do
not understand what else would be needed to reject the 'Tristram
Shandy' scenario as an argument against an infinite past. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Incidentally,
there is a contradictory scenario about the future that strikes me as
similar to the 'Tristram Shandy' scenario: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="aliceshandy"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Alice
Shandy writes a novel starting in the year 2000, and the story is set
in her future. She always writes about future days. Also, it takes
Alice a year to account for what happens in one day in her novel, and
she always writes her novel in sequence. In other words, she writes
about what happens on some day d</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
and after she finishes writing about d</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
she moves to the day after d</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
without jumping to any later day. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, for any number n, Alice
spends more than n years writing her novel. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
'Alice Shandy' scenario is contradictory, but that does not warrant a
conclusion that an unbounded future is metaphysically impossible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might insist that the task of writing a novel about the future,
writing about consecutive days at a rate of one day per year, is
obviously coherent, and so the fault must be with the idea of a
future with an unbounded number of years, but it seems apparent to me
that such a reply would be very mistaken.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
'Tristram Shandy' scenario strikes me as similar, but in any case, I
would say that we should in any case reject the 'Tristram Shandy'
scenario because the task of writing one's biography at a rate of one
day per year 'from infinity' is incoherent, and so the fact that
assuming it's possible results in absurdities does not tell us
anything about whether an infinite past in which the set of past
years has the order type of the negative integers is metaphysically
possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="parity"></A><A NAME="orbits"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.5.
Orbits and parity.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Another
argument against an infinite past defended by Craig and Sinclair</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>7</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is based on orbits and the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">alleged
parity of some numbers. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to this argument, it's absurd that if Jupiter completes 2.5 orbits
for each one Saturn completes, they would both have completed the
same number of orbits, if they have been orbiting the Sun for an
infinite number of years. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
and</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
leaving aside the fact that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">any
planet, star, etc., </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">only
lasts for finitely many years in the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">actual
world</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
fact is that there </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">appears
to be no absurdity at all. As in the case of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#hilbert"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Hilbert
Hotel argument</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
the problem seems to be a confusion about the meaning of the words. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">More
specifically, t<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">hat the number of
orbits would be the same if they had been orbiting forever and there
were a</FONT>n <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">infinite past
</FONT>composed of denumerably many years <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">merely
means that there would be a </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">bijection
between the set of orbits completed by one of the planets, and the
same set for the other planet, and that's as clear as the fact that,
say, the set of natural numbers that are multiples of two has </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
same cardinal</FONT>ity<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> as the
set of natural numbers that are multiples of five. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition to the previous argument, Craig and Sinclair also say that
if a planet had been orbiting for eternity, the number of completed
orbits would be both even and odd, and provide an unusual definition
of 'even' and 'odd' that would apply to infinite cardinals, and under
which infinite cardinals would turn out to be both even and odd. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
that is not a problem, either, but rather, a consequence of the
authors' unusual choice of definitions and the fact that there is a
bijection between any two denumerable sets. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Of
course, once again in reality </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>planets
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">don't last indefinitely, but that is
not at all relevant. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="aristoteliandiscreteness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.6.
Discrete time and infinite regress.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition to </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#reapers"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>his
'grim reapers' argument</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
Alexander Pruss</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>9</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
gives another argument against infinite regress if time is discrete</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">:
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
he </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">argues</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
that </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#rigiddiscrete"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>rigid
discreteness</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is probably not an option, due to Zeno's Stadium argument, and
relativistic considerations. I already commented on those matters
</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#discretetime"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then,
he argues against infinite regress of events under</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
Aristotelian discreteness, under the definition he suggests.</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[9]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
Pruss reasoning is basically that if there were an infinite sequence
of past events D(-n), for all natural n, such that D(-n) precedes
D(-m) if n>m, then D(-n) could cause something at time 1/n,
contradicting</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> the
hypothesis that time is discrete in the Aristotelian sense</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
According to Pruss, there is no reason to rule out all of those
happening together. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
it seems to me that there may well be, and</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
one possible such reason is </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">precisely
the </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">fact that any
consistent scenario in which time is</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
discrete in the Aristotelian sense, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
in which there is infinite temporal regress is a scenario in which
it's not the case that the event D(-n) causes something at time </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1/n.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
other words, what Pruss seems to be doing is going from the finite to
the infinite case, including in </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
infinite case scenario some entity or entities with the causal power
to bring about all of those things at time 1/n, and which exercise
such powers successfully. But that's precisely not what happens in a
consistent scenario in which time is</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
discrete in the Aristotelian sense, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
in which there is infinite temporal regress. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">At
this point, someone might ask questions like. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. What would prevent the
extension from the finite to the infinite case? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. What would prevent those
entities, if they exist, from exercising their powers? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
think that those would be the wrong questions, since it's not that
something is preventing them from exercising powers. Rather, the
problem is that one scenario is contradictory, but others aren't. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
purely for example, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
consistent scenario in which time is</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
discrete in the Aristotelian sense </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
in </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">which </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">there
is infinite temporal regress</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and no </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">entities with such
powers</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> may well be
possible. </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Theists may
believe otherwise as long as they believe in an all-powerful
necessary entity or something like that, but I see no good reason to
follow them on that. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the following
scenario S</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
appears to be consistent:</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notetype"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notetype"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notetype"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. Time is</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
discrete in the Aristotelian sense. </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. The set of years before some
year – say, 0 – has the order type of the negative
integers. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3. For any n > 10<SUP>100</SUP>,
there is no entity in the year -n with the power to bring about
something in year 0, at time 1/n seconds (i.e., 1/n seconds after the
year in question begins). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
someone might add further conditions and reach a contradiction</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notetype"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notetype"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notetype"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but that's not the issue. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
someone might suggest that the 10</FONT><SUP><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">100
</FONT></SUP><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">restriction is
arbitrary, but that would miss the point. For that matter, the
following scenario S</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">5
</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">appears to be
consistent as well:</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notetype"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notetype"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notetype"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. Time is</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
discrete in the Aristotelian sense. </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. The set of years before some
year – say, 0 – has the order type of the negative
integers. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3. For any natural number n >
10<SUP>13983</SUP>, there is no entity in the year -n with the power
to bring about something in year 0, at time 1/n (i.e., 1/n seconds
after the year in question begins). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4. For any natural number n <
10<SUP>1000</SUP>, there is an entity in the year -n with the power
to bring about something in year 0, at time 1/n seconds. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="S7"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On the other hand, the following
scenario S<SUB>6</SUB> (for instance) would be impossible: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. Time is</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
discrete in the Aristotelian sense. </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. The set of years before some
year – say, 0 – has the order type of the negative
integers. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3. For any natural number n,
there is an entity in the year -n with the infallible power to bring
about something in year 0, at time 1/n seconds (i.e., 1/n seconds
after the year in question begins). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
we can construct consistent scenarios like </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#S5"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>S</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4
</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">or</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></SUB><A CLASS="western" HREF="#S6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>S</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">5</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
as well as inconsistent ones like </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#S7"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>S</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">6</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but that </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">does not seem to
tell us anything about whether an infinite past is possible if time
is </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">discrete in the
Aristotelian sense. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any event, I would say that constructing logically contradictory
scenarios </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#aristoteliandiscreteness"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>like
the one proposed by Pruss above</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
does not seem to tell us anything abo</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">ut
time, as far as I can tell</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">.
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Incidentally, this argument, if
it worked, would seem to provide a blueprint for essentially similar
arguments against, say, infinitely many unembodied beings (like
angels), or generally infinitely many objects that can be programmed
to carry out a certain tasks in the future, etc., under the
assumption that time is discrete in an Aristotelian sense. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">For
instance, a theist who accepts Pruss' reasoning might also argue as
follows: let's say that God can create infinitely many angels {A(n)}
in a finite past, before the year 2013. Then, each angel A(n) could
be created with the task of doing something on, say, December 25,
2113, at noon GMT + 1/n second, and that would contradict </SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">that
time is discrete in an Aristotelian sense. </SPAN></I></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">There
are, of course, non-theist variants, and these kind of arguments
might be deployed against all other sorts of infinities, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">and
maybe even against the possibility of infinitely many concrete
objects. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P LANG="zxx" CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In any
case, I find the argument unpersuasive even under the assumption that
time is discrete in an Aristotelian sense, for the reasons given
above. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="science"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.7.
Scientific cosmology.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition to giving a priori arguments against an infinite past, Craig
and Sinclair also claim that science supports the claim that the past
is finite. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">One
of the arguments they use is based on what they call the "Standard
Hot Big Bang Model". </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[6]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">According
to the authors, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">model
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">supports </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">an
origin that is an absolute origin ex-nihilo, and space and time
themselves come into being at an initial singularity. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">But
the fact is that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">a</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
singularity in </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">the </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">mathematical
model </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">indicates</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
that the equations don't properly describe some phenomena, not that
there is some </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">actual thing</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
of infinite density – that would not even be defined.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover,
even th</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">at
model </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">entails
an infinite past sequence of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">changes</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
since as we move farther back </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
time, the density of the universe </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">tends
to infinity, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
so there are more than n consecutive </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">changes</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in which th</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">e
density of the universe decreases, for each n, even if the past </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">in
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">that
model is metric-finite.</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">one
of the models</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">they
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">offer
in suppor</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
of his </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">claims
against an infinite past contradicts </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">their</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">stance
on the possibility of actual infinities. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">In
any event</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">cosmologists
already know that that model is insufficient to describe </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">the
early universe. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's
true that Craig and Sinclair also offer other scientific models in
support of their claims, but they misuse them, <SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">since</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a.
E</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">ven if </SPAN><I>our
</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">universe – i</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">
a limited sense of the word 'universe' - has a finite past, that
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would not rule out that there
was time before the universe; Craig and Sinclair have not shown that
that is not the case. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. In fact,
the question of whether the universe is past-finite, even in the
narrower sense in which the word 'universe' is used in science, is
still a matter of discussion among the experts in the field.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="brief"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7. Some
assorted comments.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This
section is a bit of a side note, but I would like to address a few
issues related to a number of contingency arguments, before
addressing other arguments in greater detail. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="BCCF"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.1. The
Big Contingent Conjunctive Fact (BCCF), and the BCCF*.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
his defense of an argument from contingency, Pruss </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[10]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
posits what he calls the "Big Contingent Conjunctive Fact"
(BCCF), which is "</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
conjunction of all true contingent propositions, perhaps with logical
redundancies removed"</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and defends the BCCF against Davey and Clifton's objection </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#davey"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>6</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#davey"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
based on a presumption of innocence – i.e., Pruss suggests that
a conjunction should be presumed to make sense until proven
nonsensical. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
at least when it comes to unrestricted infinite conjunctions
encompassing arbitrary classes of propositions, it seems to me that
such presumption of innocence may not be warranted unless we have
some procedure to construct them. Else, given the expressive power of
propositions, paradoxes might be anywhere. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, I will show that the BCCF makes no sense, assuming only
that propositions – and not just sentences – can have
subformulas – which Pruss seems to accept – and a
principle we could call the "Subconjunctions Principle"
(SCP), and which looks intuitively <I>very </I>plausible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="subconjunctions"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>SCP: If C is a conjunction
(i.e., one that makes sense), and P is a property, then the
conjunction C(P) of all of the conjuncts of C which have property P
is a conjunction (i.e., that makes sense) as well. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Since
the BCCF is the conjunction of <I>all </I>contingently true
propositions, we can use a slightly modified version <FONT COLOR="#231f20">Davey
and Clifton's example and </FONT>construct a conjunction BCCF(P) of
all the conjuncts of the BCCF that do not contain themselves as
proper subformulas. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
the BCCF(P) is just the conjunction of all contingently true
propositions that do not contain themselves as proper subformulas,
since a proposition R is a conjunct of the BCCF if and only if R is a
contingently true proposition. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let
Q be the proposition, <I>that BCCF(P) is true.</I> </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Since
the BCCF(P) is contingently true because every single one of its
conjuncts is, then Q is a contingently true proposition as well, and
hence Q is a conjunct of the BCCF. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Does
Q contain itself as a proper subformula? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Mirroring
Pruss' explanation of Davey and Clifton's argument, we can see that
either way, a contradiction follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
the answer is "no", then Q is a contingently true
proposition that does not contain itself as a proper subformula.
Hence, it's one of the conjuncts of the BCCF(P), and thus a proper
subformula of itself, which contradicts the assumption that the
answer is 'no'. Hence, the answer is 'yes'. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
Q contains itself as a proper subformula, and the only way in which
that can happen is that Q is a subformula of the BCCF(P).</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
since Q is not a conjunction and the BCCF(P) is a conjunction, Q must
be one of the conjuncts of the BCCF(P), and thus, Q is not a proper
subformula of itself, a contradiction. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
conclusion is that the BCCF(P) makes no sense, and by the </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#subconjunctions"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>SCP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
neither does the BCCF. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might suggest that "logical redundancies removed"
stipulation blocks the argument I just gave. But how does one remove
something from <I>something that makes no sense? </I></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Pruss
also offers an alternative to the BCCF, namely the BCCF*. Maybe the
restrictions he imposes are sufficient, so the BCCF* makes sense, but
it's not clear that it does. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="infinitechain"></A><A NAME="causal chain"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.2.
Infinite causal chains.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
another brief note, I would like to make some comments about infinite
causal chains.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
consider a simple principle (as an example): </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="cp1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>CP(1): For every contingent
being B, there is a cause of B's existence.</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Would
that principle be enough to conclude that there is a necessary being?
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems not. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
example, it may be that some contingent being B(1) is caused by a
contingent being B(2), which is caused by B(3), and so on, and there
is no past time t at which none of the B(n) exists. In that case, all
of the B(n) are caused, satisfying CP(1). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might ask: but what about the whole chain? What about the being C(0)
that is the chain {B(n)}, for all n? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
first difficulty is that it's not clear that the chain is a being,
but leaving that aside, I would say that a causal explanation of C(0)
is given by all of the B(n). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might object to that suggestion and say that C(0) can't be the cause
of C(0), because things, events, states of affairs, chains, etc.,
allegedly can't be self-caused, so – on this account –
C(0) cannot cause C(0). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
in my assessment, any apparent difficulty is the a result of
terminological ambiguity, which disappears when we take a look at
what is actually going on, namely that B(1) is caused by B(2), which
is caused by B(3), and so on, giving a causal explanation for the
chain {B(n)}. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
whether we then say that the whole chain C(0) is self caused, causes
itself, etc., seems to be a mere terminological issue, as far as I
can tell, and regardless also of whether the word 'being' properly
applies to the chain {B(n)}. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
there <I>might</I> more causes of {B(n)}, in a sense. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
example, it might be that, for all n, B(n) is caused but not
</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#terminology"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>fully</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#terminology"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>caused</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
by B(n+1), and also that B(1) is caused not only by B(2), but by a
contingent being B(1,1), B(2) and B(1,1) are caused by a contingent
being B(2,1), B(3) and B(2,1) are caused by a contingent being
B(3,1), and so on, where the sets {B(n,1)} and {B(n)}, with n ranging
over the natural numbers, are disjoint. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
that case, the chain C(0) may be said to be caused also by the chain
C(1) consisting on the {B(n,1)}, for all natural numbers n, though in
my assessment, that is again a terminological matter: what's actually
going on is that B(1) is caused by B(2) and by B(1,1), that B(2) and
B(1,1) are caused by B(2,1). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
someone might ask for the being C(1), consisting of the chain of all
of the {B(n,1)}. But then, we may repeat the process. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
would result in a more complicated scenario, and the real case nay
well be much more complicated still, but in any event, it seems to me
that </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitechain"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
can be satisfied by an infinite regress of causes. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if </I></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinitechain"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is construed in a way that rules out such chains, I would be
skeptical of it, since </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">intuitively
I find that an infinite causal regress with no past time at which
none of the members of the causal chain existed may well be good
enough as an explanation. If there were a time t prior to the
existence of any of the B(n), the situation would be different,
because in that case, the </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>change
</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">from a state of
affairs at which none of the B(n) exists, to a state of affairs at
which infinitely many of them do, </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">would
intuitively call for an explanation. But as long as there is no past
time t at which none of the B(n) </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">existed,
intuitively I see no problem. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
someone might say that even if there is no such prior time, perhaps
there is a causally effective timeless state at which none of them
exists. I have serious doubts about the coherency of such suggestion,
but even assuming it is coherent, I don't see any good reason to
assume it obtains. So, intuitively, I would still say that an
infinite causal chain without any past time at which none of the
member of the chain existed, and also without any such timeless
state, may well be a good explanation. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="morality"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.3
Morality and contingency.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Here,
I would like to address a moral presented by Pruss</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[10]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in support of a rather strong version of the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Principle
of Sufficient Reason (PSR) for contingently true propositions –
in Pruss terminology, facts -, which can be stated as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="EP22"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>PSR(P,2): Necessarily, every
contingently true proposition has an explanation.</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to this argument, if PSR(P,2) is not true, then </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">then
there might be no explanation </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>10</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> as
to why it's not immoral to divert a trolley from a track where there
are five people to one where there is only one person, but it is
immoral to shoot an innocent person to save five (assuming those
propositions are both true, for the sake of the argument).</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
even if those were examples of contingently true propositions, it
seems to me that it's not the case that someone who does not take a
stance on whether all contingently true propositions have
explanations, ought to reject her own intuitions when they tell her
that a particular contingently true proposition has an explanation –
just as it is not the cast that someone who does not take a stance on
whether all necessarily true propositions have explanations, ought to
reject her own intuitions when they tell her that a particular
necessarily true proposition has – or probably has – an
explanation. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
it seems to me that even if those were examples of contingently true
propositions, someone might refrain from accepting that the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#EP22"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>PSR(P,2)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and still have sufficient grounds for holding that there is an
explanation as to why it's not immoral to divert a trolley from a
track where there are five people to one where there is only one
person, but it is immoral to shoot an innocent person to save five. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">In
any event, the fact is that if those propositions are true, they're
not </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>contingently</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might suggest that they're contingent, since for instance in a case
in which diverting the trolley would also remotely activate a nuclear
bomb that would destroy a city and kill a million people elsewhere –
or something like that -, it would not be acceptable to divert it if
one knows about that result, all other things equal. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">However,
that would not show that the propositions in question are contingent.
Rather, that would be </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">an instance
of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>changing the scenario. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
scenarios mentioned above (i.e., trolley and shooting) have implicit
conditions – or else, those clearly aren't moral truths.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">In
other words, if it's true that it's morally acceptable to divert a
trolley from a track where there are </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">five
people to one where there is only one person, then what's true
is </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>not</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"> a
general claim "for all x, if x is an instance of diverting a
trolley from a track where there are five people to one where there
is only </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">one person, then x is morally
acceptable", but rather, it's a claim that contains other, even
if implicit, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">conditions.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">So,
the true claim (assuming it's true) is something like "For all
x, if x is an instance of diverting a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">trolley
from a track where there are five people to one where there is only
one person </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>under such-and-</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>such
extra conditions</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">, then x is morally
acceptable". </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
that claim is </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>true
– </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">i.e.,
if it's the case that for </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>all</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
x, under those specific conditions, the consequence obtains </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>-,
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">then
it's necessary. Hence, the moral argument under analysis does not
provide any support for the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#EP22"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>PSR(P,2)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="cannonball"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.4.
Infinite conjunctions and cannonballs.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this subsection, I'd like to consider what Pruss calls the
"Hume-Edwards-Campbell Principle" (HECP)</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[10]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
. Pruss states the principle as follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Alexander Pruss</B></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[10]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">"For
any proposition </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>p</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
such that one has explained every conjunct of a proposition, one
might have thereby explained the whole."</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
a counterexample, Pruss offers a scenario that, briefly, we can state
as follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A cannonball is not in motion at
noon, and it flies at any time between noon and one minute past noon.
Let p<SUB>t</SUB> be the proposition that reports the condition of
the ball at t (momentum, etc.), for any time t in the open interval
between noon and one minute past noon. Let p be the conjunction of
all of the p<SUB>t - </SUB></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to Pruss</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[10]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
in a scenario like that, the following points obtain: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. Each of the conjuncts p<SUB>t
</SUB>is explained of another conjunct p<SUB>t'</SUB>, for t' < t,
plus the laws of nature and some conditions of the environment. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. The conjunction p has not been
explained unless one states that a cannon has been fired. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c. This is a case that is
relevantly similar to any attempt at an explanation involving an
infinite regress – even one that goes infinitely into the past
-, in the context of cosmological arguments based on the Principle of
Sufficient Reason. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
the counterexample fails, for – at least – the following
reasons. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
we're not justified in applying Newton's laws or any other
present-day model to arbitrarily small amounts of time, so this is a
case in which we would not have a [proper] explanation of every one
of the individual conjuncts. So, point a. is false, regardless of
other considerations.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second,
let's assume for the sake of the argument that the universe is
actually such that there are laws that we can correctly express with
some formulas F that properly apply to any arbitrarily short period,
and that we know the formulas in question. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
also leave aside issues such as whether we should talk of particles
rather than cannonballs, when considering such brief periods. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Even
then, Pruss' a<FONT COLOR="#222222">rgument fails because if the
process of the cannon's firing took place entirely during </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">some
interval (t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SUB>0</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">,
noon], then it seems that the ball is </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>not</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>at rest </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">at
noon, since – for instance – the energy has already been
transferred to the cannonball at noon, and part of it even before
noon. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">So,
the conclusion is that the firing of the cannon continued at least
for some time </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>after </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">noon,
and thus, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">for t sufficiently small, the
individual conjunct p</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SUB>t </SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">is
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>not </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">explained
by a previous conjunct, plus the laws F and environmental conditions
not including the firing of a cannon. That seems to block the
cannonball argument, since Pruss' claim a. above is false, and
regardless of other considerations. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps,
someone might try to use the following variant: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>The
cannonball was fired before noon, and is </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I><B>not</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>at rest at noon. But even then, all
of the conjuncts, plus F, do not explain the flight of the cannonball
in the open interval (noon, one minute past noon). </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">However,
it seems to me that in that case, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I><B>if</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
each of the conjuncts is explained by F and a previous conjunct, the
conjunction plausibly </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>is </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">explained
by the conjuncts plus F, even though a more thorough explanation
might also include the conditions of every other object in the
universe at each time t in the given interval. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">What
is not explained by the conjuncts plus F is why the cannonball began
to move in the first place, or F, but none of that is a part of the
proposition to be explained, which is simply the conjunction of all
of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">the p</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SUB>t.
</SUB></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">Granted,
normally, we </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>wouldn't</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
accept such infinite regress as a good explanation if we asked why
the </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">cannonball was in flight in the open
interval (12:00,12:01). However, it's also true that normally, we
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">wouldn't accept the proposed
explanations in the case of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>any </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">of
the </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>individual</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
conjuncts, either. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
that note, if we asked why a cannonball is in flight, we wouldn't
normally accept the following reply as an adequate explanation: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>The ball
was in flight just one second before the moment at which you asked,
and that ball one second before the moment at which you asked, plus
the environmental conditions and some other objects, caused the ball
to be in flight when you asked. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Regardless
of issues such as whether we include some formulation of laws of
nature explicitly, whether we understand the mathematical models as
approximations reflecting the causal powers of substances, etc., the
fact is that normally, we would not accept such an account as an
adequate explanation of the fact in question. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
this is so independently of considerations such as the potential
imprecision of expressions such as 'the moment at which you asked'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
reason we would find the proposed explanation inadequate might be
that the reply would not address the cause of a change from a state
of affairs in which there is no ball in flight, to one in which there
is one. In any event, and regardless of whether that is in fact the
reason we would find the proposed explanation inadequate, the fact is
that we would find the explanation inadequate in the case in which
there is no infinite regress as well, so the problem here does not
appear to be infinite regress. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
previous considerations do not seem to be a peculiarity of the
cannonball example. For instance, let's consider another example.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">Alice: </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>Bob,
why is there a big red balloon on the table? </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">Bob: </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>The
reason is that there was a big red balloon on the table one minute
ago, and that balloon, plus the environmental conditions, laws of
nature, etc., brought about that there is a balloon now on the table.
</I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">Intuitively,
we would expect Alice to find the explanation offered by Bob woefully
inadequate. Plausibly, that would probably be because Bob's answer
would not address what Alice wanted to know, namely the ball got
there in the first place. In other words, it's a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>change
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">in a state of affairs, from a state
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">at which there is no ball on the table,
to a state at which there is one, which Alice wants an explanation
of. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">However,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I><B>if </B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">for
every time t in some interval (t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">,t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">),
one has [adequately] explained why the ball was </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">on
the table at t in terms of some conditions at some earlier time t' in
the interval (t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">,t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">)
- conditions that might include laws of nature -, it may well be that
one has explained why the ball was on the table </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">during
the interval (t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">,t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">).
At least, I see no good reason to think otherwise. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
intuitively I would say that why the ball was there has not been
explained, but then, I would say the same for the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>individual</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
conjuncts. So, if there is a problem here, it seems to me the problem
is with the proposed explanations in the individual cases, and thus
this line of argumentation does not provide any good reasons to
reject the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#cannonball"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>HECP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="conjunctioncorners"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.5.
Conjunctions, corners, and Inuits. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
will come back to the issue of explanations by infinite regress
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>lat</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>er</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but first, I'd like to address </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">another
principle, which Pruss calls the "Hume-Edwards Principle"
(HEP), and which he states as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Alexander
Pruss</B></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[9]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">"</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
explaining every conjunct of a proposition, one has explained the
whole </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">proposition.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">"</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
do not claim that the HEP is true, but I'd like to consider Pruss'
arguments against it, because they lead to a number of interesting
issues, in my assessment. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
Pruss objects to the HEP by arguing that one wouldn't be able to
explain why there are a hundred Inuit in a certain corner just by
explaining why each of them is there, allegedly because there is a
coincidence left to be explained. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="inuits"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">However,
the proposition </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>that there are one
hundred Inuit at such-and-such time and at such-and-such corner</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">,
is not a conjunction. But let's consider a conjunction: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">C: </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>Susan
is an Inuit and is at corner X at time t (for some fixed X and t),
and Tom is an Inuit and is at corner X at time t, and Jack is an
Inuit and is at corner X at time t, and Mary is an Inuit and is at
corner X at time t..., and so on. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
say that Alice gives Bob an [adequate] explanation of the fact that
Susan is there at that time, and one of the fact that Tom is there at
that time, etc.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">Now,
upon contemplating the fact that one hundred Inuits are there
together, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>if </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">the
individual explanations do not make any mention to any coordination
between them, then Bob might feel inclined to ask whether there was
some previous agreement between them, which somehow was overlooked
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">when presenting all of the individual
explanations, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">However,
let's suppose first that there </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>wasn't
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">such coordination. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Pruss
seems to think that in that case, the individual explanations are or
at least may be enough to explain the conjunction, but not in case
there is some coordination between them. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
let's suppose now that there was was previous coordination, and it
was omitted in the case of the individual explanations. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then,
there are some alternatives, such as: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>Hypothesis
a. The [purported] explanations of some or all of the individual
conjuncts given by Alice are inadequate, since they omit some
important reason why the individual Inuits behave as they did, namely
their coordination with the other Inuit in question. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hypotheses
a. is not a problem for the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conjunctioncorners"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>HEP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
since in that case, some of the individual conjuncts have not been
explained by Alice. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>Hypothesis
b: The explanations of the individual conjuncts given by Alice are
individually </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>adequate,
and together, they explain the conjunction as well, even if there are
more detailed </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>explanations
of the conjunction </I></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#inuits"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>C</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>.</I></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hypotheses
b. is not a problem for the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conjunctioncorners"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>HEP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
either. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
fact, there are also more detailed explanations of the individual
conjuncts, for that matter, and that's at least usually the case for
any explanation. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>Hypothesis
c:. The explanations of the individual conjuncts given by Alice are
individually </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>adequate,
but together, they fail to explain the conjunction </I></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#inuits"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>C</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>.
</I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hypotheses
c. would entail that the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conjunctioncorners"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>HEP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is not true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="WHEPexample"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">However,
plausibly, there would </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>still</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
be an adequate explanation of the conjunction in terms of adequate
explanations of the individual conjuncts. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
example, let's say that Alice gives an adequate explanation of why
Susan was at corner X at time t which includes the fact that she had
earlier agreed to meet Tom, Mary, Jack, etc., at that corner and at
that time in order to, say, talk about Inuit history, the fact that
she wanted to discuss Inuit history with them, and so on.
Furthermore, let's say that Alice gives similar adequate explanations
in the cases of Tom, Mary, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="WHEP"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then,
plausibly those adequate explanations in terms of the conjuncts do
provide an adequate </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">explanation
of the conjunction. In light of that, someone might propose a
principle that appears to be weaker than the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conjunctioncorners"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>HEP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
Let's call it the 'Weaker HEP', or WHEP. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">For every
conjunction p such that p is explicable, and such that every
individual conjunct q of p is explicable, there are explanations E</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SUB>q</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
of every individual conjunct q of p, such that all of the E</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SUB>q</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
together explain p. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, it seems to me that there is a deeper issue at play here. I
mentioned above </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>adequate
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">explanations.
But it seems plausible to me, especially in light of the previous
examples in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conjunctioncorners"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
subsection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#cannonball"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>the
previous one</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
that the issue of whether an explanation is adequate raises questions
such as: Adequate </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>for
what purpose? </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, let's say Alice gives an account of why an individual
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#inuits"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Inuit</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
say Susan, is at corner X at time t, in terms of Susan's motivations
that morning. Alice says that Susan wanted to use a hotspot at </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that
corner to connect to the internet, and talk to her cousin who lives
in Russia. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
say that Alice's account is true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Bob
might regard Alice's account as a satisfactory explanation. But he
might not. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Bob
might regard the account provided by Alice in the individual case as
inadequate to explain why Susan is there, since the account in
question fails to explain one or more of the following points: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. Why
Susan wants to talk to her cousin. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. How
Susan managed to get to the corner in question. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c. Why
Susan would want to use a hotspot, instead of connecting from home
(for instance). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">d. Why
Susan believes that the internet is an effective means of
communicating with someone who lives in Russia. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">e. Why
Susan believes that there is a hotspot in that corner. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">f. Why
Susan believes that her laptop computer is an effective means of
using that hotspot. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">g. Why
Susan exists in the first place. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">h. Why
Inuits exist in the first place. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">And
so on. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Is
Bob mistaken in objecting in that fashion? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Some
of Bob's objections would be prevented by a more detailed account,
but the same goes for any potential objection in the case of the
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#inuits"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conjunction</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
On that note, Pruss says that in the case of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#inuits"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conjunction</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
there is a coincidence to be explained, and so he claims that for
that reason, explanations of all of the individual conjuncts together
wouldn't explain the conjunction. As a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#WHEPexample"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>previous
example</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
shows, that is – at least – not true of all sets of
explanations of the individual conjuncts, so regardless of whether
the Inuit account shows that the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#HEP"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>HEP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is false, it's unproblematic for the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#WHEP"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>WHEP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
moreover, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">an
account of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#inuits"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conjunction</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in terms of the individual conjuncts is inadequate just because it
fails to explain the coincidence in the Inuit case, a question is:
why would Alice's individual </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">account
of why Susan is there would not be inadequate also because it fails
to explain a number of other facts? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
other words, why should Bob's objections be rejected, if they should?
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
my view, and in light of the previous examples and considerations,
whether an account offered as an explanation is indeed an adequate
explanation depends not only on the content of the account in
question, but on its context as well, including even issues such as
what degree of precision has been requested, implicitly or
explicitly. None of this seems to be a particular difficulty for
explanations of conjunctions in terms of explanations of the
individual conjuncts. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="quantumrandom"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.6.
Unexplained contingent beings. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this section, I will address the issue of whether we can rule out
contingent beings that possibly exist without an explanation of their
existence. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
assume that a non-deterministic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
is true – which, for all we know, might be the case. Then, even
if bricks, cats, etc., don't pop up into existence at the actual
world, it's only extremely improbable for that to happen, but it
seems it's nomologically possible, given some improbable but
nomologically possible particle behavior. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
a theist might say that God would not allow that kind of thing, and
so it's metaphysically impossible. Regardless of issues like the
relation between nomological and metaphysical possibility, God's
behavior is not something that we ought to assume beforehand in the
context of a contingency argument, so <I>for all we know</I> (in this
context, at least), that kind of thing might happen. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
if a non-deterministic interpretation of QM is true, for all we know
that there may be a possible world W where events that are extremely
improbable, do happen. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
consider such a world W: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">At
W, bricks, cats, planes, etc., sometimes just pop into existence,
despite their quantum improbability. Moreover, the people at that
world still do experiments with particles and the like, and they get
the same results as we get here. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
on their planet, when people are not doing any experiments –
i.e., never under controlled conditions – sometimes bricks,
cats, planes, etc., just pop into existence. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover,
the behavior of particles does not have any causes different from the
causes in our world. The same fields, etc., that exist in our world
exist there, and just as in our world no one is directing the
particles (for all we know, that may be the case, so let's stipulate
so), no one is directing them in their world, either, but they just
behave in a way that results in such bricks, cats, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
I try to put myself in their situation, it seems clear to me that the
events weren't explained in their world. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, if those events begin to happen tomorrow, and some
scientists offer as an explanation that we just happen to live in a
world in which all of that happens even if it's extremely unlikely
based on our experiments in controlled conditions, it's clear to me
that those scientists would have failed to explain those events. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might suggest that the preexisting conditions of the universe are a
cause of those bricks, etc., and that that would explain them. But
the fact would remain that the purported explanation would in
practice amount to saying that the universe is just such that those
things sometimes happen no matter how improbable, and that such a
universe (or its previous states) counts as a preexisting condition
and thus a cause that explains the existence of those things. It
seems to me that that would not <I>explain</I> the events and things
in question, <I>even if </I>it counts as a cause. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Alternatively,
or in addition, someone might suggest that nothing is coming into
existence in the proposed scenario, since the bricks, cats, etc.,
would be made out of preexisting particles, or new particles that
result from energy, etc., so those are really not cases of contingent
beings coming into existence without a causal explanation of their
existence, but just transformations of things. However, in that case,
it seems to me the usual examples for or against principles involving
things that allegedly possibly exist without explanations fail to
even address the matter, and arguably we may not even have clear
examples in daily life of things that come into existence <I>with
</I>causal explanations of their existence – though some
philosophers would raise objections in the case of minds, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
will not explore these scenarios in greater detail here, but in my
assessment, the previous scenarios at least show that, <I>for all we
know</I>, there may be possible worlds in which there is no
explanation for the existence of some bricks, cats, planes, etc.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
possible worlds are a problem, we may drop them, and just consider
the previous scenario as one that, while <I>extremely</I> improbable,
might even actually happen, if a non-deterministic interpretation of
QM is true. It's not something we should worry about, of course (it's
<I>too </I>improbable to be a concern), but it seems to me it's
enough to suggest that, for all we know, such scenario may be
metaphysically possible.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><A NAME="metacausal"></A><A NAME="causalnecessity"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.7
Metaphysical necessity and causal necessity. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
the context of one of his contingency arguments, Pruss proposes a
causal account of metaphysical necessity. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#pruss1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[10]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to this account, a state of affairs S is merely possible if there is
something capable of originating a causal chain leading up to S, S is
possible if S is actual or merely possible, and S if necessary if ¬S
is impossible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">It
seems to me that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">this causal account
should be understood as implying that if there is [or probably there
is or there </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>was</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">]
something that is </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>or was</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
capable of starting a causal chain leading to ¬S, S is not
metaphysically necessary. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">For instance,
let's consider the state</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"> S: = </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>In
the twentieth century, Bill Clinton wins a Presidential election in
the United States</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">. Since that
already happened, there is nothing that can bring about ¬S. But S
is not metaphysically necessary. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
aside, if</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
that account is true, it seems to me that the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability
criterion</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
with our without visualization, would have to be set aside entirely,
since what we can conceive of does not seem to be a good guide to the
causal powers of actual entities, which we seem to learn mostly
empirically. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Purely
for example, even if we can conceive of or imagine ourselves being
given a space suit and being teleported to Mars within two minutes,
that does not seem to give us reasons to believe that some entity has
the power to move objects faster than light within the Solar System. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Similarly,
even if we can conceive of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, that does not seem to give us reasons to think </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that
there are entities with the power to bring it about, or even to bring
about a finite event, say, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#En"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>E(10</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#En"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>10000!!!!!!!!!!!!</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#En"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
it seems to me that if this causal account of metaphysical modality
in terms of causal modality is correct, our capability for conceiving
scenarios are no guide to metaphysical necessity, possibility, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objectionabove"></A><A NAME="objection0"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That said, someone might raise
the following objection: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><I>Given</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366">
that conceivability [perhaps, plus visualization; the specific
objection may vary] is a good </FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366">guide to
metaphysical possibility, then </FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><I>if
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366">metaphysical possibility reduces to
causal possibility, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><I>then
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366">conceivability [perhaps, plus
visualization] is a good guide to causal possibility. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">However,
it seems very implausible to me that what we conceive of, with or
without visualization, would be a good guide to what causal powers
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>actually</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
exist, because as pointed out above, we seem to learn about causal
powers mostly empirically, and simply because I don't see any good
reason to </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">suspect that there is any
connection between what we can conceive of, with or without
visualization, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">and what actually can be
brought about by some entity, except in the very limited sense in
which, when we </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>already</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
know by empirical findings that some powers are possible, then we can
conceive of some entity exercising such powers and bringing something
about, but that does not seem to be what the conceivability criterion
is about. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps,
a theist might suggest that a, say, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
gave us a sense that allows us to track what is causally possible by
means of visualization – for instance -, but it seems to me
that would have to be argued for, and the burden would be on the
claimant. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">So,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>assuming</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
that either visualization or conceivability without visualization is
a good intuitive guide to metaphysical possibility, I would say that
an account of metaphysical modality in terms of causal modality is
probably incorrect. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, if metaphysical possibility reduces to causal
possibility, I would be very skeptical about any conceivability
criterion, and moreover, personally I'd say that if metaphysical
possibility reduces to causal possibility, chances are it reduces to
nomological possibility as well – though I will not assume that
in this essay, of course. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Intuitively,
I find the conceivability criterion without visualization plausible,
and the hypothesis that metaphysical possibility reduces to causal
possibility implausible, but at least I would say skepticism is
warranted. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, the hypothesis that metaphysical possibility reduces to
causal possibility would not be </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">problematic
for an </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>infinite
explanatory regress.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><A NAME="maximalcontingent2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>8. An
argument from maximal contingent states of existence. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
a paper in which he proposes alternative paths to a necessary
being</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#joshua1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#joshua1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>17</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
Joshua Rasmussen argues </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">for
the possibility of contingent states of existence that entail all
contingent states of existence with which they are compatible. Those
states would consist of some contingent objects' existing, and would
be incompatible with the existence of any other contingent objects. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then,
he uses a causal principle, combined with the premise that there are
possible maximal contingent states of existence, to derive the
conclusion that there is a necessary concrete object. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
will assess his argument in this section, though I will address some
evidence in greater detail </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#artificial"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>later</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><A NAME="maximalcontingent"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>8.1.
Possibility of maximal contingent states of existence. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
order to support the possibility of such maximal states, Rasmussen
considers two different alternatives: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Lonely"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The first
one would be a contingent object – which he calls 'Lonely' -
that is maximally incompatible with other contingent objects. Also,
that incompatibility is intrinsic, so if Lonely is possible, any
duplicate </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteintrinsic"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>18</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteintrinsic"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of Lonely at some other world</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleworlds"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleworlds"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>19</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#possibleworlds"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is also maximally incompatible with other concrete contingent
objects. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems that Lonely can't be caused by another contingent concrete
object that ceased to exist before Lonely comes into existence,
either, so Lonely's incompatibility extends into the past if
presentism is not true. In other words, Lonely, if possible, can't
coexist with other contingent objects that previously existed, at
least not if presentism is not true. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I'm
skeptical about the possibility of Lonely, for the following reasons:
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
if we try to use the conceivability criterion, if we conceive of a
scenario S in which a being B exists </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>without
including modal terms </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
the description of S, then it seems plausible that we can add a new
being C without contradiction, which would indicate that B is not
Lonely, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>at
least if that's </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>how
the conceivability criterion works</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
For instance, assuming that unembodied physical beings (say, angels)
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">are
possible, why can't one add an angel without destroying B? </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notegod"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notegod"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>20</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notegod"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
that's not how the conceivability criterion works and – say –
visualization is relevant rather than whether the definition is in
modal terms, then it seems that we can't visualize a scenario with a
being B and which would rule out other contingent beings, so the
criterion would be silent, but would provide no support for the
possibility of Lonely. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
it seems to me that either conceivability supports the impossibility
of Lonely, or is silent. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps,
someone might say that conceivability neither requires visualization
nor does it require that the scenarios not be described in modal
terms. But I'm not sure how to use the criterion then. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Leaving
conceivability aside, I still do not see any good reasons to think
Lonely is possible. I do not have any other intuitions suggesting
it's possible or not. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noessentialism"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noessentialism"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noessentialism"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
I would say that on intuitive grounds, skepticism about whether
Lonely is possible is at least warranted. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Perhaps,
someone might suggest a 'principle of innocence', according to which,
unless one finds a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">contradiction, one
should prima facie hold that a certain being </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>probably</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is possible, even if it looks intuitively implausible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">However,
in </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
case, we may for that matter consider (for instance) a concrete being
that is </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">incompatible with all personal
beings, and then one that is incompatible with all non-personal
beings, which would be a problem from arguments from contingency. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
at least on intuitive grounds and in this context, skepticism about
the possibility of Lonely is at least warranted. But there does not
seem to be empirical support for Lonely, either. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given
that, it seems to me that skepticism is at least warranted. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
consider the second alternative that paper provides. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
author argues that if Lonely isn't possible, plausibly objects are
generally compatible with each other, and then he proposes a scenario
in which certain being called 'Big Blob' coexists with all contingent
objects compatible with it. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
first issue is whether Big Blob is possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Big
Blob, by definition, is a being that necessarily occupies all of
space. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
let's say a being B</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
occupies all of space. If unembodied, self-aware, beings are
possible, should we think it's not possible for there to be some
powerful personal being B</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
who coexists with B</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
at world W, and who has the power to remove B</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
from any volume V of space of her choosing? </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteblob"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteblob"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteblob"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">A
potential reply is that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>if</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
B</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is Big Blob, then B</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>necessarily</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
occupies all of space, so if B</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
tried to </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">remove B</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
from some volume V, the attempt would either have no effect, or else
it would annihilate B</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
and the resulting being (if any being results) might still occupy
most of space, but it would not be B</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
because the </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>essence</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
of B</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is such that if B</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
exists, it must occupy all of space. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Without
the assumption that essentialism is true, I would say Big Blob is
intuitively implausible. But given that I'm assuming essentialism, I
don't have any clear intuition one way or the other, so I would
remain undecided on the possibility of Big Blob as well, on intuitive
grounds.</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteessential2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteessential2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, there seems to be nothing apart from intuitions that
might be used to support the claim that Big Blob is possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
given the above, I think skepticism about both the possibility of
Lonely and of Big Blob remain at least warranted. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Even
assuming that Big Blob is possible, it's still not clear to me that
maximal contingent states of existence are so as well. For instance,
if there is a state of existence containing some angels, is it always
possible to add another one? </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notemaximal"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notemaximal"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>24</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notemaximal"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><A NAME="causal0"></A><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>8.2.
The causal principle. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
causal principle in this argument can be stated as follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="causal4"></A><A NAME="CPR1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>CP(R,1):
Necessarily, normally, for all S such that S is a contingent state of
existence, possibly S's obtaining, or that a duplicate of S obtains,
is causally explained. </B></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteintrinsic"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>8</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteintrinsic"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Rasmussen
considers a scenario in which a maximal contingent state of existence
M contains infinitely many objects causing each other, etc., and
points out that even if such causal chains are possible, it remains
the case that no contingent concrete object could provide an </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>external
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">causal explanation of a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">maximal
state M. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
is true, but then, it seems that in order to account for the
epistemic possibility of such chains, the principle we should
consider is the following one – which is equivalent to </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CPR1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(R,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">infinite
causal </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">chains
like the one described above aren't metaphysically possible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="CP2"></A><A NAME="causal41"></A><A NAME="CPR2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>CP(Alt,2):
Necessarily, normally, for all S such that S is a contingent state of
existence, possibly S's obtaining, or that a duplicate of S obtains,
is causally explained by a cause that is </B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>external</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>to
S. </B></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteintrinsic"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteintrinsic"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>18</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteintrinsic"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">That
principle has the problem that by means of considering bigger states
of existence, we would keep </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>removing
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">causes from a causal account. By
demanding that the causes be </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>external</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
we would ignore all of the causes internal to the state, and that
would bring up the question of whether we have removed </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">them
all, leaving no external cause left standing. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
it has the problem that it extends a principle not only from familiar
cases to all actual cases, or </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">cases
in similar possible scenarios, but to </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>all
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">possible
worlds. But that means that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Lonely"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Lonely</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is possible and existed at a world W, the only way that it would be
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>normal</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
at W – and at any time at W, it seems – that contingent
concrete objects have causes would be that there is a necessary
concrete object, which </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
improbable based on other pieces of evidence, and at the very least
we ought not to assume </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">beforehand.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
argued </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#normalexception"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
a principle like </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CPR2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(Alt,2)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is just one potential generalization from some of the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">evidence
we have, to some (much) more general categories. Another potential
generalization would be – for example: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="CP3"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>CP(3): Actually, normally,
concrete states of existence have causes. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">CP(3)
is more modest than </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CPR2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(Alt,2)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in some ways, and more demanding in some other ways. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">It's
more modest in that it does not extend the principle beyond the
actual world, and in that it does not </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">demand
that the cause be </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>external</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
so it does not remove causes from a causal account. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's
more demanding in that it does not limit the concrete states of
existence to contingent ones. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
the principle </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CP3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(3)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
may well be satisfied in all cases without any necessary concrete
objects. On </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
other hand, an uncaused concrete object would be an abnormality under
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CP3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(3)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Also,
without a necessary concrete object, the state of existence C
consisting in all contingent concrete objects' existing would not
have any </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>external </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">causes,
but that would simply be because we just put all </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">of
the causes within the state in question, which would be the same as
the state T of all concrete objects' existing, and which does not
have external causes regardless of whether or not there is a
necessary concrete object. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, for reasons I gave </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#normalexception"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
rather than trying to pick one principle or another, I would suggest
assessing a larger body of evidence, which I will do </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#artificial"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>later</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="mereologicalissues"></A><A NAME="mereological ssues"></A><A NAME="mereological issues"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>9. A
mereological argument from contingency.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this section, I will assess Koons' cosmological argument in support
of the existence of a necessary cause, considering both the original
formulation </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#koons1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#koons1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and a later variant </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoons2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>6</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoons2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
I will not address his arguments about the properties of such cause
in this section, but I will do so </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#attributes"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>later</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notation "></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>9.0.
Notation and definitions</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
will use Koons' definitions, and a very similar notation, in
particular: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">x≤y:
= x is a [mereological] part of y. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">xOy
(x overlaps y):= (xOy↔ⴺ<SPAN LANG="hi-IN">z</SPAN>(x≤y
and z≤x)). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Ax:
= x is actual. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">▽<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">x
(x is wholly contingent): =(▽x↔Ax&∀y(y≤x→<B>¬</B>Ax)</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">x►y:
= x is a cause of y. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="mereologicalprinciples"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>9.1.
Mereological principles. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="axiom 1"></A><A NAME="axiom1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>9.1.1.
Axiom 1:</B></FONT> <B>(x≤y↔∀z(zOx→zOy))</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
seems intuitively plausible to me. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">An
interesting consequence of axiom 1 is that x is <I>not </I>a part of
y, then there is some z that overlaps x but not y. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="axiom4"></A><A NAME="axiom 4"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>9.1.2.
Axiom 4:</B></FONT> <B>(x</B>≤<B>y</B>→<B>(Ay→Ax))</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
curious consequence of Axiom 4 seems to imply that (for instance), at
least by any common usage of the terms, particles aren't parts of the
Earth, since they keep decaying, but the Earth still exists.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While
our language is imprecise, the word 'Earth' has a meaning, even if
that meaning is imprecise to some extent, and the meaning is such
that the Earth still exists if we remove a particle. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might say that each time a particle ceases to exist, a new being
comes into existence instead of the previous one, etc., and 'Earth'
denotes all of those new beings, but that sounds rather unusual. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There
is another problem, it seems: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
consider the state of affairs S<SUB>1</SUB> consisting of Napoleon
thinking about Waterloo. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems plausible that possibly, Napoleon could have made different
choices and could have never thought about Waterloo. If so, then, S</FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is not a part of Napoleon if </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 4"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
holds. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
so, then by </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
there is some concrete state of affairs z that overlaps the concrete
state of affairs consisting in Napoleon thinking about Waterloo, but
does not overlap Napoleon. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
sounds intuitively implausible to me. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="axiom2 "></A><A NAME="axiom 2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>9.1.3.
Axiom 2:</B></FONT> ⴺ<B>xF(x)→</B>ⴺ<B>y∀z(zOy↔</B>ⴺ<B>u(F(u)&uOz))</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This
axiom states that there are arbitrary mereological sums: if there is
state of affairs of type F, then there is a mereological sum or
aggregate of all the states of affairs of type F. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given
that F is an arbitrary type, that means (for instance) that there is
a mereological sum of the supermassive black hole at the center of
the Andromeda galaxy, Napoleon and Napoleon's mother (for instance). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition, since this is extended to any arbitrarily category, there
is an aggregate of all contingent states of affairs, which is
actually the aggregate of all states of affairs as well, regardless
of whether there is a necessary state of affairs. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Intuitively,
the axiom seems weird to me, and I see no good reason to accept it
despite its counterintuitiveness, so I remain skeptical about it. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="causalkoons"></A><A NAME="causalprinciples"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>9.2.
Causal principles </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="axiom 6"></A><A NAME="axiom6"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>9.2.1.
Axiom 6:</B></FONT> <B>(</B>x►y)→¬(xOy): </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This
axiom, on its own and plausibly or in combination with </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
eliminates causes from a causal </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">account.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, assuming </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
let </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let
M(BHA, N) be the mereological sum of the supermassive </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">black
hole at the center of the Andromeda galaxy and Napoleon. A cause of
M(BHA, N) is Napoleon's </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">mother.
While she's not a cause of all of the parts of the sum, she's a cause
of one at least one of them, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
so one of the causes of the sum too. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now,
let M(BHA, N, NM) be the mereological sum of the supermassive black
hole at the center of the Andromeda galaxy, Napoleon, and Napoleon's
mother. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
someone asked for a list of causes of Napoleon, his mother and the
black hole in question, it seems to me that Napoleon's mother would
be on the list, since she's a cause of Napoleon, and Napoleon is one
of the things whose causes we're looking for. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet,
the combination of mereological and causal axioms given so far
implies that Napoleon's mother is not one of the causes when asking
for causes of the sum M(BHA, N, NM), removing that cause from our
causal account of the world. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Even
on its own and without assuming or denying </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
axiom 6 removes causes from a causal account, as the following
example shows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
we consider the state consisting in a house standing on a hill, it
seems that the state has both external causes – like some stuff
elsewhere in the Earth -, and some internal causes – like
interactions between different parts of the house. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
axiom 6 removes all internal causes from a causal account, and only
leaves the external causes left standing – of course, that is
not related to the causal structure of the world, but with our
account of it. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
particular, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
6 </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">axiom
has the potential for removing all causes from a causal account,
regardless of whether there are any actual exceptions to causality
going on; in other words, it tends to creates artificial exceptions. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, in the case of the category 'contingent states of affairs',
clearly the procedure eliminates all causes from a causal account,
since the mereological sum of all contingent states of affairs is the
mereological sum of all states of affairs, so there are no external
causes, and axiom 6 eliminates all internal ones. However, that does
not tell us anything about the causal structure of the world. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
find this axiom very implausible when applied to states of affairs,
on its own and even more so in combination with </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="__DdeLink__8744_446966022"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>9.2.2.Axiom
7: ∀x(▽x </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">→</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">ⴺ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>y</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>(y</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">►</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>x)).
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Axiom
7 selects a category of states of affairs, namely wholly contingent
ones, and states that any state of affairs in the category has a
cause, which is to say an external cause in this context. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
combination with the previous axioms, it entails that there is a
necessary state of affairs. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons
says that the justification is empirical, because both by use of
common sense and by use of science we keep finding causes of wholly
contingent states of affairs</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteparticles"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>.[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteparticles"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>27</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteparticles"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet,
we also keep finding causes of states of affairs, or contingent
states of affairs, not just wholly contingent ones. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let
M be the aggregate of all contingent states of affairs. Then, M is
the aggregate of all states of affairs, because if any state S is
necessary, the sum of S and a contingent state is contingent. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
since M is the aggregate of all states of affairs, it has no causes
assuming </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
6</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of
course, M still has plenty of internal causes, but they're all
removed from out causal account by </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
6</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
because </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
6</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
demands that a cause be external to the mereological sum. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Thus,
the procedure of taking mereological sums, in combination with </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
6</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
results in the elimination of </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>all
</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">causes from our causal
account, when it's applied to the category 'contingent states of
affairs'. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This,
of course, tells us nothing about the causal structure of the world. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet,
for all we know a priori, there may well not be any necessary states
of affairs. And empirical evidence does not seem to change that. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
we have good reasons to reject axiom 7, namely that for all we know,
it may well be that the category 'wholly contingent states of
affairs' is the same as the category 'states of affairs', and if so,
by removing all internal causes, we would have no cause left
standing. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="axiom8"></A><A NAME="axiom 8"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>9.2.3. </B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>Axiom
8: Normally, (▽x</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> →</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">ⴺ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>y</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>(y</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">►</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>x)).</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Axiom
8 is proposed by Koons</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoons2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoons2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>26</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekoons2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">as
an alternative to </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom7"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
7</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
6</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
accepting axiom 8 would lead us to conclude that every wholly
contingent state has an external cause, unless a positive reason can
be given to exclude some particular state. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
it seems to me that there is a good reason, as explained above –
namely, it may well be that the category 'wholly contingent states of
affairs' is the same as the category 'states of affairs', and if so
the mereological sum of all wholly contingent states of affairs has
no external causes, simply because that would be the same as the
mereological sum of all states of affairs, and then all of the causes
would be internal. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Axiom
8 would be one of many possible </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#normalexception"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>generalizations</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
from usual cases to arbitrary categories. An alternative
generalization would be: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>CP(Alt,8):
Normally, any state of affairs has a cause.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
(not necessarily an external one)</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
principle may well be satisfied if there are no uncaused beings, but
an uncaused being would be an abnormality. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
in any event, those generalizations are just that: extrapolations
from some evidence that we have – including intuitions about
familiar cases – to general categories. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
for the reasons I gave </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#normalexception"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
rather than trying to pick one generalization or another, I would
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">suggest
taking a look at a larger body of evidence</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteintuition"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[4]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">;
which I will do </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#artificial"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>later</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="moreprinciples"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>10.
Three more causal principles, and more contingency arguments. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this section, I will consider three more causal principles, proposed
by Joshua Rasmussen</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#joshua1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>7</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#joshua1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="causal61"></A><A NAME="causal6"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>CP(R,3):
∀T(T is a type of contingent concrete object → ¬◊
(the obtaining of the state of affairs </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>there
being at least one member of T</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>is causally explained by a member of
T). </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="infinite2"></A><A NAME="infinity2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
even if the state of affairs </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>there
being at least one member of T</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is not explained by any </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>particular</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
member of T, it seems to me it may well be</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>
</U></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>causally
explained by infinite regress </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>involving
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>members
of T</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>.
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
actually looks like a plausible assessment of the evidence to me,
which is a matter I will address in greater detail </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#artificial"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>later</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Whether
that would also imply that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that
there is at least one contingent concrete object </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">metaphysically
necessary would depend on whether metaphysical necessity reduces to
causal necessity, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
suggestion I addressed </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#causalnecessity"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and which I personally don't find convincing. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
assess another principle: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Causal5"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>CP(R,4):
</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">∀</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>T(T
is a type of contingent concrete object </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">→
◊ </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>(the obtaining of the state of
affairs </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>there being at least
one member of T</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>is
causally explained))</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's
clear that assuming </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#causal6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(R,3)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
CP(R,4) would lead directly to a necessary concrete object (e.g., by
applying CP(R,4) to the type 'contingent concrete objects'), </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
one rejects </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>causal
explanations involving infinite regress</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but I find them intuitively good enough, whereas </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynecessary"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>I
do not find a necessary being intuitively good enough as an
explanation</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
we stipulate that an infinite causal regress does not count as an
explanation in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#causal5"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(R,4)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>then</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
the principle appears implausible to me. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
author points out that there are philosophers who find </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#causal5"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(R,4)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
intuitively plausible by considering examples such as armchairs, and
similar cases. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That's
true, but I'll point out that those familiar examples do not extend
infinitely into the past, and further, it seems that also some
philosophers find one or more of the following points intuitively
plausible: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. For every concrete object that
exists, it possibly does not exist, and so the category 'contingent
concrete object' is the same as the category 'concrete object'. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2.
Moreover, the criterion of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability
without visualization</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is a good guide to metaphysical possibility, which supports 1. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. Every concrete object that
actually exists has at least a cause. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3. A causal
explanation </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>including
infinite regress</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
is good enough, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynecessary"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>whereas
one proposing a </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynecessary"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>necessary
cause isn't</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">;
I will analyze the explanatory power of two competing hypotheses
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatory"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>later</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, in order to assess the matter, and for reasons I gave
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#normalexception"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#normalexception"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>,</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
would suggest not trying to pick one principle or another, but taking
a look at a greater body of relevant evidence, which I will do </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#artificial"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>later</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To
end </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#moreprinciples"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
section</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
let's consider another causal principle proposed in the same paper,
which can be stated as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="__DdeLink__8748_446966022"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>CP(R,5):
</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">∀</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>T(T</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>is a type of contingent concrete
object </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">→ ◊ </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>(the
obtaining of the state of </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>affairs
</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>there being exactly n members
of T</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>has
a causal explanation)); n >0. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
reply is similar to the reply to the reply in the case of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#causal5"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(R,4)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
variant of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>explanation
by infinite regress</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
also works similarly: for instance, if all concrete objects are
contingent and the total number of present and past actual concrete
objects is z – for some cardinal z -, then the explanation as
to why there are z in total would be that at any time t, there were
z(t), and </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that
was brought about by, say, z(<t), the ones that existed
previously, and so on, and the total number sum is z</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
counting each thing once of course. </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
time is discrete, we may introduce a countable sequence instead, etc.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="properties"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>11. An
argument from the exemplification of properties. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this section, I will address another contingency argument, based on
the exemplification of some properties, defended by Joshua Rasmussen.
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#joshua2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>8</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#joshua2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
will introduce a definition, for the purposes of abbreviation: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="b-property"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>Definition</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">:
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>An intrinsic property P is a
B-property if and only if P can begin to be exemplified, and can be
exemplified by something that has a cause. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>Notation</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">:
'</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>B(P)' means that P is a B-property,
and 'CCP' means the property of being a contingent concrete
particular – if that is a property at all. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given
that notation, the causal principle states: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>CP(R,6): Normally, if B(P),
then there can be a cause of P's beginning to be exemplified. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Rasmussen
defends that principle, and also argues that being a contingent
concrete particular is a </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#b-property"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>B-</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#b-property"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>property.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Before
I address the causal principle, I will address the claim that being a
contingent concrete particular is a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#b-property"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>B-property.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="propertiesexistence"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>11.1.
Properties and existence. Contingency. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
consider some existential claims first. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="obama1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>O1: Obama exists. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">It
seems to me that O1 does not ascribe any properties to Obama. O1 does
not seem to describe Obama. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">Rather, it
seems to me that, O1 tells us how </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>the
world </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">is – namely, it contains
Obama. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="O2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>O2: It is metaphysically
possible that Obama exists, and it is metaphysically possible that
Obama does not exist. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">As
in the case of O1, in my view O2 does not seem to ascribe any
properties </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>to Obama</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.
O2 does not describe Obama is. It tells us something about some ways
in which it is possible for the </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>world</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
to be. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="O3"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>O3: Obama is a contingent
being. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">O3
means that Obama exists, and it's possible that Obama does not exist.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
O3 is also not ascribing properties to Obama, as in the cases of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#O1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>O1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#O2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>O2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and for the same </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">reasons</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
in my assessment. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
I would say that being contingent, or existing contingently, is not a
property of Obama, and for the same reasons, it's not a property of
any other being, either. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">But
then, it seems to me that being a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>contingent</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
concrete particular is not a property of beings, either, just as
being a concrete particular </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that
exists</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> is not a property of beings. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
if being a contingent, concrete particular is not a property of
beings, in particular it's not a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#b-property"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>B-</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#b-property"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>property</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
then that seems to block this path to a necessary concrete being. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">A
variant of this path may use 'predicate' instead of 'property', but
it seems plausible to me that being contingent is not a predicate,
for essentially the same reasons explained above, namely that to say
that some entity exists and/or possibly exists and possibly does not
exist, etc., seems not to describe </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>the
entity</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> in question. If anything, it
seems to describe how the world is, or possibly would be. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="timebegins"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>11.2. A
beginning of time.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
order to assess another part of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#properties"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
case for a necessary being</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
let's assume for the sake of the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">argument
– and in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#timebegins"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
subsection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
only – that being a contingent, concrete particular is a
property of beings, and further that it's an intrinsic property. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Under
those assumptions, a question is whether </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#b-property"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CCP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
can begin to be exemplified. It seems to me that under that
assumption, and leaving aside 'empty time' without any concrete
particulars – which appears </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">impossible
to me -, the conclusion that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#b-property"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CCP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
can begin to be exemplified requires the following extra hypothesis: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="time1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>EH(Time): Either there is a
necessary concrete being, or possibly, time has a beginning.</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">It's
clear to me that we have no epistemic obligation in this context to
accept beforehand that if it's impossible that time has a beginning,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>then </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">there
is a necessary concrete object. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
it seems to me that a relevant issue here is whether we should accept
that possibly, time has a beginning. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">The
paper suggests that we can </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>imagine</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
an initial singularity, particles coming into existence, etc.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">However,
a singularity in a mathematical model means that the equations break
down, not that there is </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">some infinitely
dense object – that's not even well-defined. Even leaving that
aside, it's not clear in </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">which sense we
would be able to </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>imagine</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
that time possibly has a beginning. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Does
imagination require visualization? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
so, it seems to me we can't</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecant2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecant2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>8</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecant2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
do that. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Perhaps,
someone might say we can partially visualize a beginning of time,
even if not one with a singularity or particles. However, visualizing
a scenario and </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>stipulating </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">that
there is no previous time does not seem to amount to visualizing a
beginning of time, and I've not been able to find any way of
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">visualizing it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
visualization is not required for imagination in this context, then
can't we similarly imagine that there is no concrete object,
entailing no necessary concrete object exists? </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notemalo2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notemalo2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>30</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notemalo2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Alternatively,
also if visualization isn't required, can't we imagine that time
begins, and at the beginning </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">there is a
single personal being C</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
creator of all of those particles, etc., and then imagine a different
beginning, with a different creator C</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">?
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">If
C</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>1</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
and C</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
are both possible, then it seems to me that no concrete being is
necessary. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">So,
let's say that visualization is required. Then, for the
aforementioned reasons, it seems to me that the </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">criterion
provides no support for the view </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that
possibly, time has a beginning. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#science"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Science
does not seem to settle the matter in the actual case, either</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">So,
unless another argument establishes </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that
possibly, time has a beginning</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">, it
seems to me that we are justified in remaining skeptical about that –
either that, or plausibly we're justified in using the conceivability
without visualization criterion to conclude that there is no
necessary concrete object, but let's leave this alternative aside for
now. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There
are some philosophical arguments that, if successful, would establish
the possibility of a temporal beginning, though they all seem to go
further than that, since they aim to establish the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>impossibility</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
that time has no beginning. However, in my assessment, they all fail.
I addressed some of the most common arguments in support of that
conclusion </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinities"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="causalprinciple"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>11.3.
The causal principle. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
principle is: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="CP6"></A><A NAME="CPR6"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>CP(R,6):
Normally, if </B></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#b-property"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>B(P)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>,
then there can be a cause of P's beginning to be exemplified.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That's
one generalization from some familiar cases to arbitrary categories,
among many potential generalizations. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
the reasons I gave </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#normalexception"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
I would suggest </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#artificial"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>taking
a look at a greater body of evidence</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
instead of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">trying
to apply some generalization as the correct one. I will take a look
at such evidence in the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#artificial"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>next
section</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but first, I'd like to point out that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">one
accepted that time possibly has a beginning, and also </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CP6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
causal principle</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
one may reason as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First, for
the reasons given above, it seems that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#propertiesexistence"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>there
is no property of being a contingent, </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#propertiesexistence"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>concrete
particular</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
blocking the use of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#b-property"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CCP</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CP6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(R,6)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second, the following plausibly
are properties: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. Self-awareness – the
property of being self-aware. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. Consciousness – the
property of being conscious. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c. Intelligence – the
property of being intelligent. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">d. The property of having
subjective experience. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">e. The property of having a mind.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Under the
assumption that time possibly has a beginning, then it seems
plausible that any of those </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">properties
can also begin to be exemplified, so unless there is a </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>specific</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
reason why they would </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">be
exceptions to </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CP6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(R,6)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
it seems the beginning of their exemplification possibly has a cause.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">At this
point, someone might say that none of those properties can begin to
be exemplified </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
there is a necessary timeless, intelligent, self-aware, etc., agent.
However, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#objection9"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>the
claimaint should coherently explain what she means by 'timeless'</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and why one should suspect that there might be such being, even if
'timeless agent' is coherent. If that burden isn't met, it seems it
remains plausible that those properties can begin to be identified. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Similar
considerations, but applying </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CP6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(R,6)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to properties like 'having a non-zero volume', 'having a spatial
location', etc., would also lead to the conclusion that the
exemplification of such </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">properties
also has some cause, unless a specific reason against that is given. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, given
all of the above, and under the assumption that possibly, time has a
beginning plus </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CP6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(R,6)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
a probable conclusion would appear to be that there is no necessarily
uncaused concrete being that exists necessarily. Then, a plausible
conclusion would be that there probably is no necessary concrete
being.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
I think that an approach like that, in addition to the problematic
assumption that time </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">possibly
has a beginning, also has the weakness of trying to apply one
specific principles, like </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CP6"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(R,6)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
instead of looking at a broader body of evidence. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
as I said, I'd rather take a look at a broader body of evidence,
which I will do in the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#artificial"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>next
section.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="artificial"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12. A
proposed assessment of the evidence. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this section, I will present two potential hypotheses, and consider a
reasonable amount of evidence for or against them, using 'evidence'
in broad sense, including a priori intuitions. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="space"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On a terminological note, in this
section, by 'space' I mean to include all spatial dimensions that
exist. In particular, I'm not talking about our particular universe,
in case there are more – a matter on which I take no stance. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
aside, the hypothesis are: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="H0"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Hypothesis 0:</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. Every concrete being is
metaphysically contingent. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. Actually, every concrete being
is at least a partially caused. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">3. No
concrete being or beings that actually exists or existed has or ever
had the causal power to </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">bring about </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that
there are no concrete beings. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4. Concrete beings have powers
(and liabilities, if we wish to distinguish them) such that, if one
of those beings is destroyed, other beings are formed in its place,
and there are specific beings that are formed in some specific
being-destroying events.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For instance, it particle of type
A collides with particle of type B and they're both destroyed, their
causal powers and liabilities are such (for instance) that only
particles of types C, D, or F can be formed, and at least some of
them do. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">5. There is no beginning of time,
in the sense that: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. If there are finite temporal
intervals, then for every finite temporal interval I, there is a
previous finite temporal interval J such that J does not overlap I. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. If there are temporal
instants, for every instant t, there is a previous one t'. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
particular, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
takes no stance on whether concrete beings are always or sometimes
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#full"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>fully</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
caused, on whether time is dense or discrete – or, if discrete,
on whether it's </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#rigiddiscrete"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>rigidly
discrete</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
-, or on </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">whether
time has an intrinsic metric.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="NB"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Hypothesis NB: </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There is a concrete being O such
that O is uncaused, and it's metaphysically necessary that O exists.
O is a cause of the existence of every contingent concrete being.
There are possible contingent concrete beings that only O can bring
about. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Before
I go on, I would like to address a number of difficulties when
assessing these matters. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">First,
different people seem to have different intuitions, even about what
is </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>a priori </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">plausible.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
my assessment, that may well be, perhaps to a considerable extent,
because even those intuitions are the result of our experiences, what
we have encountered so far, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
regardless of the causes of the interpersonal differences in
intuitions, the fact remains that different people seem to have
different intuitions on a number of these matters, and while,
perhaps, given sufficient empirical evidence and time for reflection,
in the future people's intuitions will converge when it comes to the
issue of contingency arguments, it seems to me that we're a long way
from that point yet. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second,
there is an enormous amount of empirical evidence that may well be
relevant. That means that even when we take into consideration an
ample body of evidence, it may well be that we left relevant evidence
aside. Moreover, in this essay, I will select some of the evidence
that I find the most relevant, rather than going on for hundreds of
pages. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
I do think that the approach of looking at a larger body of evidence
instead of trying to apply one or another principle is generally a
better approach, as we're more likely to include </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#normalexception"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>relevant
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#normalexception"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>evidence
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#normalexception"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>that
otherwise may well be missed</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Third,
and to some extent related to the first point, it's not clear whether
some pieces of evidence – including different intuitions –
are relevant, and if so, how much. On that note, we may cite the case
of conceivability with our without visualization, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#causalnecessity"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>metaphysical
possibility reduces to causal possibility</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
then it seems to me that what we intuitively find conceivable, with
or without visualization, are no guides at all, though I acknowledge
that's also disputable. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, if metaphysical possibility does not reduce to causal
possibility – which seems more plausible to me -,
conceivability may well play a role, but </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>it's
also unclear how they </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>should
be used</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
In </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">my
assessment, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
without visualization plausibly is an acceptable guide, at least in
many </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">cases,
but I recognize that many others have different views. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Fourth,
of course the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>previous</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>two</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
hypotheses aren't exhaustive, and some pieces of evidence might
support some other theory better. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">With
all that said, I will take a look at a what I think is a reasonably
broad body of evidence in this context, much of which is usually used
in the context of contingency arguments, and explain my assessments,
acknowledging that other people make very different ones. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="uniformity "></A><A NAME="uniformity"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.1.
Uniformity and simplicity. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems to me that under </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
the world is much more uniform than under </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
since </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
every concrete being exists contingently, and is at least partially
causally explained. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
particular, with regard to modality, there are no concrete beings
that exist necessarily, so there is no the modal structure of the
world seems is more uniform. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="M"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, and
with regard to causation, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
does not entail any anomaly in the causal structure of the world:
every concrete being and/or concrete state of affairs has a cause. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">What
about the state of affairs M consisting in</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
all concrete objects' existing, having relations between them,
instantiating properties, etc.? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Clearly,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#M"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>M</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
does not have any </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>external
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">causes,
but of course, it has plenty of causes; it's just that they're </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">all
internal ones. There seems to be no </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>actual</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
exception or anomaly in the causal structure of the world </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">at
play. The fact that there are no external causes of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#M"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>M</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is merely the result of the definition, but all of the causes are
still there. It's just that we're defining a state that contains all
of them, so we've put all of the causes together when considering
them, and we've not left any causes outside. It seems to be a </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">matter
of notation, but the causal structure of the world contains no
exceptions. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, hypothesis </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
does contain a concrete being O without any causes at all, or –
if one prefers – a state of affairs with no causes at all –
the state consisting in O's existing. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
contains an actual anomaly in the causal structure of the world,
whereas </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>
</U></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">uniform
in that regard. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
on </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">all
concrete beings have limited powers and they have some liabilities,
and so </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">on.
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition, there is no special temporal point, no beginning of time. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
makes no claim as to whether time has a beginning, and also has fewer
conditions than </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
on powers and liabilities of concrete beings in general, but on the
other hand it contains a </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">special
being, and some specific claims about the powers of that special
being. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">All
in all, in my intuitive assessment, if we can assign a prior
probability to such hypotheses at all, the prior probability of
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is no less than the prior probability of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="broadconceivability"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.2.
Conceivability without visualization. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
my assessment, the conceivability criterion does not require
visualization, for the reasons I gave </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
Moreover, it seems to me that the conceivability criterion supports
the conclusion that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is false, for the following reasons: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noconcrete"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. We may posit a scenario S in
which there are no concrete beings, and find no contradiction. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. We may posit a scenario S' in
which there are no personal beings, and find no contradiction. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c. We may posit a scenario S'' in
which space does not exist, and find no contradiction, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Intuitively,
I would find those scenarios plausibly possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">In
particular, intuitively, it seems to me that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that
there are no concrete beings </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">is
possible </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>regardless</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
of what actually exists. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">On
that note, it seems to me that that's very different from cases like,
say, 'water is H</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">O'.
In a case like that – and assuming that it's metaphysically
necessary that water is H</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">O
-, we can tell </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>a priori</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
and by </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">our intuitive grasp of the term
'water' </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that necessarily, water if
ABC if and only if actually, water is ABC</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
– whatever ABC is, and even if we do not know that water is
H</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">O.
So, we know that for some XYZ, whether it's possible that water is
XYZ depends on what actually obtains, but that is not my </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">intuition
when it comes to assessing hypotheses like 'there are no concrete
beings', in which intuitively I would say that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that
no concrete being exists </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">appears
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">possible </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>regardless</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
of what beings actually exist, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">what
properties they have, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
intuitively, I would say that the conceivability without
visualization criterion supports the conclusion that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>
</U></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>is
not true</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and generally that neither is any hypothesis that posits that a
concrete </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">being
exists necessarily. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">At
this point, a potential objection to my assessment using the
conceivability criterion would be that we may also posit that a
concrete being exists necessarily, and find no contradiction. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
I think that the objection fails, just as the objection to the
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#unicorns"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>unicorns</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
example fails, because </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">plausibly
either the scenarios we may justifiably take into account when
applying the conceivability </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">criterion
shouldn't contain modal terms in their definition, or at least
scenarios not containing modal terms take precedence over those that
do. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
based on all of that and my intuitions about other scenarios, I will
tentatively propose the following partial account of metaphysical
possibility for scenarios: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="proposedmeta"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A scenario S described in
non-modal terms is [metaphysically] possible if an only if: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">a. For
every object B such that B exists in S, if B is identified by a term
that, by its meaning, entails that some of the properties and/or
relations of the referent must be the </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>actual</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
properties and/or relations, then S respects those fixed properties
and/or relations. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">This
applies both to names of particulars, like 'Julius Cesar', or to
words denoting kinds, like 'water', </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>if</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
any word like that fixes some of the properties and/or relations to
be the actual ones. It also applies to any other word that fixes the
referents in such a fashion, if there are any other such words. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. S is not internally
contradictory. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
scenarios that involve modal terms in their descriptions aren't
covered, and that would require considerably more work, so the above
is just a sketchy partial account, which seems account for the
intuitions of at least some of us. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">That
aside, another potential objection to the use of conceivability
without visualization as a criterion </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">against
the existence of a necessary concrete being (or personal being, etc.)
would be that, perhaps, there is a hidden contradiction in scenarios
in which there are no concrete beings, no personal beings, etc.,
which would seem to imply that there is a successful </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>ontological
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">argument
for the existence of concrete beings at least, or of at least one
personal beings. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
that potential objection appears weak to me as well, especially given
that no one has been able to a</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">find a
contradiction, despite the fact that many people have tried for a
long time; of course, I </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">tried
as well, to no avail. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
that note, it seems that if we can't find a contradiction for a long
time, that seems to give us good </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">reasons
to think that a statement</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>not </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">contradictory,
unless we have good reasons to</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">remain
skeptical </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
a specific case. Otherwise, it's seems hard to see how we could
properly assess that there probably is no contradiction in, say,
Zermelo-</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Fraenkel</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">set
theory, number theory, finite field theory, and so on. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To put it in a different way: if
we reject the objection from potential hidden contradictions in usual
mathematical theories, even involving complex sets of axioms, why
should we accept this objection when it comes to what seems to be a
much simpler statement, which merely denies the existence of concrete
beings? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Perhaps,
someone has a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">good</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">answer,
but I've not been able to find it. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">All
that said, I recognize that many philosophers have different
intuitions, and/or may reject conceivability without visualization as
a guide to metaphysical possibility for other reasons. So, I will
assess other potential criteria; in </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">particular,
in</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
the next subsection, I will consider a visualization criterion. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notebroad"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notebroad"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notebroad"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notebroad"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="narrowconceivability"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.3.
Conceivability plus visualization. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
I mentioned </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
I'm skeptical about the view that visualization plays a role in
assessing metaphysical possibility, so </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">conceivability
without visualization is not a good guide to metaphysical
possibility, then I think it's plausible that neither is
conceivability plus visualization (or just 'visualization' for
short), for the reasons I gave </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>in
a previous section</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
there are philosophers who accept the visualization criterion but not
the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>without
visualization</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
so in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
subsection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
I will analyze some cases using the visualization criterion. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
using only visualization, it seems to me that there isn't much we
could tell: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
it seems that we can't visualize unembodied minds, or their
non-existence, so the visualization criterion is silent about whether
they're possible, contingent, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second,
we can visualize scenarios in which </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#space"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>space</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
exists. Moreover, we cannot visualize any scenario in which space
does not exist. So, this criterion does not support the contingency
of space. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
that note, it's interesting that even if we are able to visualize a
volume of space with some properties that are different from the ones
we found around us, for all we know that might be a parallel
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">universe,
so that kind of visualization would not support the contingency of
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#space"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>space</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
either. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Furthermore,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
visualization criterion were used also as a guide to metaphysical
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>necessity</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
it would support </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that
space necessarily exists</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
which would be a problem for </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">also
space is a being. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
it seems to me this criterion is usually used as a guide to
possibility, not to necessity. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Third,
we can visualize a finite volume of space without any objects that
would be big enough for us to see if they were there, and which
wouldn't be invisible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
we cannot visualize a finite volume of space in a way that rules out
that there are objects that are too small for us to see, or perhaps
otherwise invisible objects. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Moreover,
even in the case of visible objects, a finite volume of space without
those objects would not entail that the objects in question do not
exist </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>elsewhere. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Fourth,
in the case of objects with parts that we can see, we can visualize
them breaking into parts, so it seems visualization supports
contingency in that case. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="narrowcont"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.4.
Continuity.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to this criterion, if some scenario is possible, then analogous
scenarios that are more or less extended in space and/or time without
any limiting lines are possible as well. The rationale behind this is
that any line would be arbitrary. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This
criterion, if accepted, may be used in an argument in support of the
view that any particle is contingent if it exists, as follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Since it's possible that a finite
volume of space is devoid of objects of volume greater than, say, one
cubic meter, then the same is true for any smaller volumes. Also, by
extension, it's possible that all of 3-dimensional space be empty,
and thus no particle is necessary. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
it's not clear that an argument like that succeeds in ruling out
necessary particles, for the following reasons: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">i. If a
maximal connected 3-dimensional region of space it empty, that does
not seem to entail that there aren't any other 3-dimensional regions,
regions, some of which are not empty. Whether an extension from a
finite volume of empty space to </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>all
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">3-dimensional regions of space is
doable by the continuity criterion depends on how exactly the
criterion is construed. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Plausibly, we may consider
different versions of the continuity criterion – more
precisely, different continuity criteria -, some of which would
extend to all 3-dimensional regions of space, and some of which do
not extend. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">ii. In any case, it seems to me
that zero-volume particles might escape the argument above, if such
particles possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Still,
depending on the way continuity is constructed, that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>might</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
provide evidence against necessary </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">particles,
if accepted. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
aside, this criterion, if accepted of course, would also work against
a number of potential agential candidates to necessary beings, as the
following examples show: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="nogod"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. We know
that a being with a mind like that of a two-years-old human kid
suffering horribly for a brief period is possible, so by the
continuity criterion, it's possible that such a being suffers for
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">eternity,
ruling out a necessary </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god,
or a </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>necessary
2-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While not
needed to rule out a necessary </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god,
or a </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>necessary
2-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
we may also add an </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">arbitrarily
large number of such beings suffering for eternity, or even add an
infinite torturer – resulting in something like the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Malo"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Malo</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario -, or one infinite torturer per victim, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="nobeauty"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. We know
that at least one very ugly object is possible, and then by
continuity, that ugliness </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">possibly
extends across time and all across 3-dimensional space with as many
ugly objects of that kind as we wish. That would be evidence against
a necessary </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
who essentially appreciates beauty and rejects ugliness. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There are potential objections,
though. For instance: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2.a. A potential objection would
be that that is only an extension to 3-dimensional space, but there
may still be other dimensions, or spaceless objects. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
even if there are other dimensions and/or spaceless objects, it seems
plausible to </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">me
that a necessary </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
who essentially appreciates beauty and rejects ugliness would not
create a 3-dimensional space filled with ugliness all across time,
given her appreciation </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">for
beauty and rejection of ugliness. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2.b. Another potential objection
would be that, perhaps, the continuity criterion only shows that it's
possible that there is a maximal connected 3-dimensional region of
space of arbitrary large volume that is filled with ugly objects all
across time, but that does not extend to an infinite volume and/or
does not rule out that there are also other, parallel 3-dimensional
regions with beauty in them. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
even if any of that is true – which depends on how exactly the
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>continuity
criterion</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is construed -, it remains plausible to me that a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
who essentially appreciates beauty and rejects ugliness probably
would not create such an eternally ugly region. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2.c. A
third potential objection would be that, perhaps, the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in question has moral </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">reasons
to behave in such a fashion, for instance if she's contingently
morally good and decides to punish some other entities for eternity,
placing them in an ugly Hell, and assuming that such entities
appreciate beauty as well. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
it's intuitively clear to me that a morally good </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would not engage in infinite punishment. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That said,
the case against a necessary </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
who essentially appreciates beauty and rejects ugliness based on the
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>continuity
criterion</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
may be inconclusive, unlike the case against </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#nogod"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>a
1-god </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#nogod"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>or
a 2-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
But still, if the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>continuity
criterion</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is accepted, the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#nobeauty"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>previous
construction</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
seems to provide enough evidence to conclude that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>very
probably</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
there is no necessary </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
who </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">essentially
appreciates beauty and rejects ugliness. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3. In a
similar fashion, a warranted conclusion would be that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>very
probably</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
there is no necessary </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
who essentially appreciates ugliness and rejects beauty. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4. More
generally, if B is a [proposed] necessary </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
who essentially has the priority to – eventually – bring
about </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that
R does not obtain</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
for some R that we can visualize for brief periods </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
in finite volumes, then by continuity, R possibly happen for
eternity, plausibly ruling out B as a candidate to a necessary being.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If required
– perhaps, for some potential </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-gods</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
-, by continuity, R also possibly happens in </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">arbitrarily
large finite volumes of space, or even in an infinitely large
3-dimensional volume.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
would not be </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>strong</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
evidence against </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– since there would be plenty of other candidates left -, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">but
at least it would rule out some of the most commonly proposed
candidates, including any usual form of monotheism, and a good number
of others. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition to all of that, this criterion or a similar reasoning, if
accepted, seems to provide support for point 5. of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
namely that time has no beginning, since it's possible that an event
happens before another event, and it seems any line would be
arbitrary if any future line is, unless an argument against an
infinite past succeeded. In my assessment, they do not succeed; I
replied to some of those arguments </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#infinities"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
I mentioned earlier, in my assessment the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability
without visualization</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
criterion plausibly works and rules out </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
or at least makes it very improbable, but </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>assuming</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
that that is not the case for some reason and the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability
without visualization</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
criterion fails despite its being so intuitive to </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">me,
I would be rather reluctant to accept any criterion based on
intuitions about what's plausibly possible, rather than actual
evidence of possibility. It seems to me I would have to know </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>why
</I></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability
without visualization</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
fails, assuming it does, in order to properly assess the plausibility
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of
the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>continuity</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
criterion, or other such criteria. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
in particular, I wouldn't find the arguments based on continuity
given above persuasive, under the assumption that the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability
without visualization</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
criterion fails to show that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is not true, or at least very probably not true. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteH0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteH0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteH0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteH0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
it's a complex issue, and maybe others consider continuity a good
guide to metaphysical possibility, even if they reject </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability
without visualization</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
If they're correct, then the arguments provided in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
subsection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would provide at least </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>some</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
evidence against </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– and, in particular, against theism -</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>some</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
evidence in support of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="mindbrain"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.5.
Agents and complex physical brains. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">A
relevant question is whether our evidence supports the conclusion
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that actually, agents depend on
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>complex physical objects</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
– which we may call 'brains', to give them a name -, and if so,
to what extent. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This
matter is relevant to the issue of at hand, because evidence
supporting that conclusion would be </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">evidence
against a necessary uncaused agent, which would also be evidence
against </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
since it would affect a number of the potential candidates to the
necessary being in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
even though not all of them. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps,
someone might still suggest that maybe a necessary agent might have a
complex physical brain that exists necessarily. However, even in that
case, it seems to me that the agent would plausibly have causes in
the particles that make up that brain – or in whatever it is
that makes it up – so that would plausibly not be an uncaused
agent. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
my assessment, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that
actually, agents depend on complex brains. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This
is not something we could tell a priori, but an empirical finding. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
example, for all we can tell a priori, we might have found that: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. People who die communicate
telepathically with the living, telling the living that they still
exist, and providing evidence by moving objects whenever they say
they will, answering questions only they knew as far as we could
tell, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. Some spells that allow people
to apparently swap bodies – as in movies, or TV shows –
seem to work fine, even after repeated testing for centuries. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3. There is no correlation
between the development of the brain or of any other part of the
body, and the development of the mind, and in particular no
detectable change in the brains in the case of body-swapping spells. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4. Similarly, brain damage never
results in character changes, memory loss, or generally loss of
cognitive functions. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">5. A few beings apparently can
possess people or non-human animals at will, and/or appear to us in
many different forms, and/or communicate telepathically even when
they're not apparently in any body.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
my assessment, that would have been very strong evidence against the
hypothesis that actually, agents depend on complex brains. There are
other possibilities, of course. However, that is not what we found.
Among other things, we found that: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">6. There is a tight correlation
between the development of brain and mind, in humans and other
animals. In my assessment, in any agent that we can tell beyond a
reasonable doubt exists, we can also tell that there is that
correlation.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">7. Similarly, damage to the brain
results in damage to the mind, and loss of brain function results in
loss of cognitive functions, and even changes in someone's
personality, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, in particular, slow but
significant deterioration of the brain, by aging or illness, results
in similar deterioration of the mind, with progressive loss of
memories, ability to reason, etc.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
many people believe that there is evidence from near death
experiences and/or out of body experiences that supports the opposite
conclusion. In my assessment, when carefully analyzed, there is no
evidence providing non-negligible support for that conclusion. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">So,
I recognize that an in-depth analysis of the evidence is beyond the
scope of this essay, but in my assessment, empirical evidence
strongly supports the hypothesis </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that
actually, agents depend on complex brains</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
and I don't think any philosophical arguments against that conclusion
succeed, either, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">though that is also a
complicated matter. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
that assessment is correct, then it seems to me that that is strong
evidence against any uncaused necessary agent. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="particlescontingency"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.6.
Particles and contingency.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition to </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>different</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>criteria</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
we may assess whether empirical evidence supports the hypothesis that
particles are contingent. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
one hand, it seems that we keep finding particles, and they are
contingent. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
on the other hand, someone might wonder whether the evidence might
have gone in a different direction, supporting the hypothesis that
they're necessary. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">While
I do not know what evidence might have made a hypothesis that some
particles are necessary </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>probable</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
I can think of some scenarios that would seem to at least be more
favorable to that hypothesis than what we found. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
example, let's say that we had found the following – which we
couldn't rule out a priori: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. We are unable to destroy
atoms, no matter what we do.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. Theories that posit that atoms
existed forever and will exist forever, and posit nothing that can
destroy them, always make correct predictions. On the other hand, any
similarly simple theory that posits otherwise makes many incorrect
predictions, to the best of our knowledge. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Would
that have been evidence in favor of the hypothesis that some
particles are metaphysically necessary? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Personally,
I wouldn't say that it would be </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>strong
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">evidence, but it seems to me it
would have been at least </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>some
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">evidence, though of course not much
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>if </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">we
can rule out necessary particles on a priori grounds beyond a
reasonable doubt. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="contingent causes"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.7.
Causality. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
support of point 2. of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypotheses
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
I would say that we keep finding causes of at least nearly every
being that we find.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
potential objection to this would be space (or spacetime), if space
(or spacetime) is a being. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
if, say, space is a being, it may be that a cause, and even a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#full"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>full
cause</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of space's existing at t is that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">it
existed at some time u < t, and so on. I will address the matter
of regress </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatory"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>below</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="limitations"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.8.
Causal limitations and liabilities.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems that beings we encountered so far can be classified at least in
nearly all cases into types of beings with some limited powers and
liabilities. In particular, when a being of a certain type is
destroyed in a certain way, some specific beings are formed, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
before, this is not something we could tell a priori. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, for all we could tell a priori, we might have found that
some particles annihilate each other without any detectable trace,
and that the theories that posit no trace at all correctly predict
observations, whereas similarly simple theories that posited
otherwise do not.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
there seems to be at least some empirical support for point 4. of</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>
</U></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="explanatory"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.9.
Explanatory intuitions. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
matter of explanations is one in which, in my experience, intuitions
vary widely. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="P"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still, I
will explain my assessment in this subsection, comparing </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
vs. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
when it comes to the explanation of the proposition P, which states
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>that
there are concrete beings. </B></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="explanatorynonec"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.9.1.
Explanatory intuitions without necessary beings.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is correct, then the following obtains: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>P</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is causally necessary, in the sense that there actually isn't, and
never was a being with the power to bring about ¬P. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#causalnecessity"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>metaphysical
necessity reduces to causal </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#causalnecessity"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>necessity</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– which I doubt -, then </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>P</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is also metaphysically necessary. If not, then P may or may not be
metaphysically contingent. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Third,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>P</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is metaphysically contingent, then </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
we accept possible worlds, there is a possible world at which </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>P</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
does not obtain, but that world is not causally accessible from the
actual world. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Fourth,
regardless of whether </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>P</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is metaphysically contingent or necessary, it seems to me that there
is a causal explanation of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>P</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in terms of the P</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">t</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
for all times t, where P</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">t</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
states </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>at
t, P obtains.</I></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">On
this account, the explanation of any P</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>t
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">is that for some t'<t, P</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>t
' </SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">is true, and given the causal
powers and liabilities of the beings at t', that entails that P</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>t</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
obtains. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might object to that kind of explanatory regress as an explanation of
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>P</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but intuitively, I do </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">not
see the difficulty. At least, I would say any intuitions about
familiar scenarios – which are scenarios that don't extend
infinitely into the past – actually having explanations and/or
causes would be satisfied, and the account by infinite regress given
above seems to be good enough to me, when it </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">comes
to </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#P"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>P</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
particular, intuitively, I would say that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
does </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>far
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">better
than hypothesis </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">regard,
though I recognize other people have very different intuitions. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
let's take a closer look at </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and its purported explanatory power: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="explanatorynecessary"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.9.2.
Explanatory intuitions and necessary beings.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
the reasons given earlier, in my assessment, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>provides
a causal explanation of the existence of concrete objects that is
good enough</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#uniformity"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>has
no causal or modal anomalies</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
whereas </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">contains
both kinds of anomalies. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this subsection, I will address the issue of the explanatory power of
hypothesis </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– or other, similar </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">hypotheses
that posit necessary concreta. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
that note, if someone claims that some being must exist, I find
myself wondering 'Why must it exist?', and if the reply is that it
must exist because of the necessity of its own nature or something
along those lines, I find the answer puzzling. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
to illustrate my take on these matters more clearly, I'll introduce a
principle used by William Lane Craig in his defense of an argument
from contingency: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>EP(1): Anything that exists
has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its
own nature or in an external cause. </B></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>33</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecraig1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
find that puzzling, for the following reasons: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
even assuming essentialism, it seems to me that the nature of a being
would consist in some properties, but that seems to have nothing to
do with whether the being in question exists, since </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#propertiesexistence"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>existence
is not a property</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– which is also why I consider purported properties defined in
terms that entail necessary existence problematic as well. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second,
leaving that aside, if necessity were a property of beings, I would
still wonder: why is the nature of that being such that it
necessarily exists? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
the assumption that necessity is or may be a property won't help in
my case. I would still find myself asking the question as to why that
being must exist, whereas I find </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>the
explanation I mentioned </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#explanatorynonec"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>above</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
under </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
intuitively good enough. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover,
intuitively I find the claim that some concrete being must exist to
be in much greater need of an explanation than the claim that such
concrete being does exist</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">S</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">o</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">even a hypothesis that
posits a contingent </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">entity
as a </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">first cause would be,
in my assessment</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">and
while </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">e</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">xpl</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">anatorily
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">worse</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
than something like </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
all other thing equal, still better than </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
hypothesis that </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">posits a
necessary one and leaves the fact that the entity in question
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">necessarily exists or </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">must
exist without an explanation</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
said, someone might raise the following issue: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#ff3366">But what
about numbers, propositions, or the laws of logic? Isn't an adequate
explanation of </FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366"><I><B>their</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff3366">existence the necessity of their own
nature?</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="LEM"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I do not see how those would be
beings, but in any case, let's consider for instance a paradigmatic
case like the case of the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM), in order to
assess the matter. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems to me that we can tell, just by the meaning of the words, that
for any proposition Q, the proposition (Q v ¬Q) is true,
regardless of what Q is. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet,
that seems to be true independently of any ontological claims, and I
don't know why I should accept an ontological claim that the LEM
exists. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
fact, a claim like that is even hard for me to grasp. Similar points
can be made for, say, claims about propositions, or numbers. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
we're usually warranted in saying that, for instance, <I>there are
</I>infinitely many prime numbers. But that does not look to me like
an ontological claim. Rather, my impression is that what we're saying
is that there are infinitely many prime numbers in the set of natural
numbers. But of course there aren't infinitely many prime numbers in,
say, the set {1, 3, 5}. When we say that there are infinitely many
primes, it seems to me that we (usually) implicitly pick the natural
numbers as our domain of discourse, but that's all. As far as I can
tell, we're not asserting that some objects exist, other than in the
sense that they exist in the set of natural numbers, but without
making ontological claims. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Similarly,
there are necessarily true propositions (for instance) in the
category of all propositions. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
the question of whether such sets or categories exist, as an
ontological claim, appears equally puzzling to me. It strikes me as
conflating the territory (in non-philosophical but </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>hopefully</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
clear enough terms, what's 'out there', including minds with some
thoughts, etc.) with abstractions based on the territory, our
intuitions, experiences, etc. </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteterritory"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteterritory"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteterritory"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteterritory"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">aside</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
I recognize many other people, theists and non-theists alike, have a
very different view on these matters, and it's a complicated matter.
But still, even assuming that the </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#LEM"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>LEM</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
numbers, etc., are beings and necessarily exist, a claim that the
explanation as to why those beings exist, or why they </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">must
exist, is 'the necessity of their own nature' would remain just as
puzzling to me. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Similarly,
a claim that they exist because they must exist would make me wonder:
'But why must they exist?' Intuitively, I would still keep looking
for an explanation. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
given all of the above, I find </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to be much more satisfying, in terms of explanations, than hypothesis
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
I mentioned, I recognize that other people have very different
intuitions on the matter. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="foundations"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.10.
Foundations and intuitions. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Some
philosophers may also have an intuition that contingent beings cannot
exist without a metaphysically necessary concrete being, and some
might offer as an analogy – for example -, a house, which needs
a foundation to stand. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
I do not have that intuition, nor do I find that example, or other
potential examples, analogous at all. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, a house needs a foundation because of how some concrete
beings interact, given their causal powers, etc. On the other hand, a
spaceship built in orbit and not designed to land wouldn't need such
a foundation. But in any case, I do not find that example or any
other similar examples related to the issue of a whether there is a
concrete being that exists necessarily. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
concrete beings are all contingent, but none has the causal power to
destroy them all. I do not see any intuitive difficulty here. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="overall"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>12.11.
Overall assessment. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given
all of the previous subsections, in my assessment, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H0"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypotheses
0</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is considerably more probable than hypothesis </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#NB"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>NB</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
even if I leave aside the </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability
without visualization</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>criterion</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
But I </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">recognize
that the matter is complex, and other people have different
intuitions. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
the rest of this essay, and unless otherwise specified, I will assume
for the sake of the argument that there is indeed a necessary
concrete being, and assess theistic arguments in favor of the claims
that such being is an agent, has infinite or maximal power, moral
goodness, knowledge, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="candidates"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>13.
Candidates</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>to
necessary concrete beings. General considerations. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
the previous sections, I've focused for the most part on arguments
that intend to establish that a necessary concrete being exists, and
raised a number of objections. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">From
now on, and unless otherwise specified, I will assume for the sake of
the argument that there is a necessary concrete being, and raise
objections to arguments in support of the claim that that being is
God, under some common definition of the term 'God'. In particular, I
will assume that the criterion of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability
without visualization</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
fails, and that the</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#proposedmeta"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>
</U></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#proposedmeta"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>partial
account of metaphysical </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#proposedmeta"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>possibility
suggested above is mistaken</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Part
of my strategy</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteapproach"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteapproach"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
involves</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
presenting different non-theistic hypotheses, including some
candidates to necessary beings, and then assessing theistic
objections and arguments, actual or potential, also comparing
non-theistic potential replies with theistic ones. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
let's introduce the hypotheses in question: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="H1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>Hypothesis
1</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Space, including all spatial
dimensions (as many as they turn out to be), is a necessary being,
and necessarily, space has some necessary causal properties that we
may call 'laws of nature', and we may approximate by some
mathematical models. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Particles aren't necessary. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I will call the necessary space,
with its necessary properties '1-megaverse'. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hypothesis 1 takes no stance on
whether there are parallel universes in the 1-megaverse, how many
dimensions there are, whether space is infinite, and similar issues.
It also takes no stance on whether the 1-megaverse is deterministic,
causally or otherwise. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="H2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>Hypothesis
2</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Spacetime, including all spatial
dimensions (as many as they turn out to be), is a necessary being,
and necessarily, space has some necessary causal properties that we
may call 'laws of nature', and we may approximate by some
mathematical models. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Individual particles aren't
necessary, but causal powers of spacetime are such that if particles
are destroyed, then others are formed instead (photons count as
particles here). Also, the laws are such that necessarily, there are
some particles.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I will call the necessary
spacetime, with its necessary properties '2-megaverse'. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hypothesis 2 takes no stance on
whether there are parallel universes in the 2-megaverse, how many
dimensions there are, whether spacetime is infinite, and similar
issues. It also takes no stance on whether the 2-megaverse is
deterministic, causally or otherwise. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="H3"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Hypothesis 3: </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Some basic particles that we've
not found yet are necessary beings, and either space or spacetime is
a necessary being too. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I will call space (or spacetime),
plus the necessary particles, '3-megaverse', though I make no claims
that they would be some sort of mereological sum: I'm merely
considering them together for the purposes of evaluating the
hypothesis. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hypothesis 3 takes no stance on
whether there are parallel universes in the 3-megaverse, how many
dimensions there are, and similar issues. It also takes no stance on
whether the 3-megaverse is deterministic, causally or otherwise. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To
be clear, I'm not suggesting that a non-theist who believes that
there is a necessary concrete being ought to believe that one of the
hypotheses above or a similar one is correct. There are more options,
including agnosticism about what kind of concrete being or beings are
necessary. I'm just introducing these candidates as potential
examples. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objections"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>14. Some
theistic objections, and rebuttals. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this section, I will assess several potential theistic objections to
some of all of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>previous
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypotheses</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
particular, I will in a number of cases construct non-theistic
replies that mirror a potential theistic argument, but have a
non-theistic conclusion. In this context, I do not mean to claim that
the non-theistic conclusion obtains, but only to show some of the
problems of some potential theistic arguments, which are illustrated
by non-theistic parallels. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>14.1.
Objection 1</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
any particle P, it is conceivable that P does not exist, or ceases to
exist, so all particles plausibly are contingent. So, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is plausibly false. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>Reply</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">:
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
visualization is required for conceivability – </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#conceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>but
why?</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">-,
then there are subatomic particles we can't </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecant2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecant2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>9</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notecant2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">visualize,
except in the sense that we can of course visualize something and
stipulate that that something represents the particle, but for that
matter we can make such a representation of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>anything</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">disappear.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's
true that we can already check that many particles are contingent,
but </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
posits that some particles we haven't discovered yet. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, if conceivability does not require visualization and
it's enough to stipulate that a given particle does not exist or
ceases to exist and find no contradiction, then it seems we can
similarly conceive of the non-existence of any given personal being
by stipulating that she does not exist and finding no contradiction. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Rejoinder:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a.
We can visualize empty space, which also gives us grounds to think
that no particle is necessary. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">b.
Based on our experience with particles so far, we can tell that
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>probably</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
all particles are contingent. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a.
We can't visualize any spatial volume in a way that would rule out
that it contains particles that are too small for us to visualize, of
course. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover,
even if we managed to visualize a finite volume of empty space, the
necessary particles might be elsewhere, for all we know. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">b.
Based on our experience with intelligent beings, personal beings,
self-aware beings, beings with complex minds, etc., we can tell that
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>probably</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
they're all contingent.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Rejoinder.
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a.
We can visualize a finite volume of space that is devoid of any
objects of a size that we could visualize. Then, by a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>continuity</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
criterion, since any lines would be arbitrary, we should conclude
that it's possible that all of 3-dimensional space be empty of any
object of a positive, finite size. <BR>Hence, both </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>
</U></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
are false. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
I argued </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>it's
not entirely clear to me that that argument against necessary
particles </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>succeed</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">s.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
even granting that such a criterion works against necessary particles
and rules out both </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U>
</U></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
it seems that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>that
criterion rules out theism as well.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>14.2.
Objection</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>2.
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
particles are contingent, plausible it's possible that they all cease
to exist. So, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">hypothesis
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is plausibly false. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
would simply deny </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While
I find a concrete being that exists necessarily intuitively
implausible, assuming that such a being exists, I do not see any
further counterintuitiveness in a theory that holds that necessarily,
that being brings about some contingent particles. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>14.3.
Objection 3. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Theistic
hypotheses are simpler, and probabilistic considerations favor them
over non-theistic ones, both in terms of prior probability and more
importantly posterior probability. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While
I disagree with that assessment, a discussion of such probabilistic
arguments would be beyond the scope of this essay. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection4"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>14.4.
Objection 4. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's
conceivable that the universe may have different laws, so it would be
a different universe. Hence, plausibly, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypotheses
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
are false, since space, or spacetime, aren't necessary. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Actually,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypotheses
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
are all compatible with the existence, in addition to our universe,
of parallel universes which behave in a different manner from the way
our universe behaves. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">They
would all exist in the megaverse. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, some multiverse models in actual scientific cosmology posit
parallel universes with some </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">local
laws different from those of our universe, while more general laws
hold in all of the multiverse. Something similar might happen under
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypotheses
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
or </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Also,
none of the hypotheses in question requires that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>our
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">universe </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>necessarily</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is brought about, either. The megaversal laws do not need to be
causally deterministic.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection5"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>14.5.
Objection 5. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
space plus some laws is conceivable, then space – </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>all
of it</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– with different laws is also conceivable, and so </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypotheses
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
are plausibly all false, because a different megaverse is
conceivable. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
conceivability requires visualization, even if only partial,
plausibly we can't conceive of a scenario </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">incompatible
with </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypotheses
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
or </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
since any partially visualized scenario might happen in a universe
parallel to our own, but still in the megaverse of one of those
hypothesis. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
conceivability does not require visualization, then, for any personal
entity, we may stipulate that she does not exist, and find no
contradiction. Alternatively, we may posit that the most powerful
agent is not morally good and find no contradiction, and so on. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Rejoinder:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Since
it's possible that a finite volume of space is devoid of objects of
volume greater than, say, one cubic meter, then the same is true for
any smaller volumes, by a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>continuity</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
criterion. Also, by continuity, it's possible that all of
3-dimensional space be empty, ruling out hypotheses </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Similarly,
it's possible that all of 3-dimensional space is filled with a copy
of some object, say a ball. </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
that would seem incompatible with </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
which hold that space has some </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>necessary
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">laws,
since it seems it's possible that 3-dimensional space be filled with
pretty much anything. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
even if a maximal connected region of 3-dimensional space is possibly
filled with pretty much anything, or empty, whether a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>continuity</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
criterion entails that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>all</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
of 3-dimensional space is possibly like that depends on how
continuity is constructed. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second,
in any event, even if this argument based on the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>continuity</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
criterion actually rules out hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#nogod"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>an
argument based on that criterion also rules out theism</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection6"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>14.6.
Objection 6. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">All
the parts of necessary beings are necessary. But </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypotheses
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would entail necessary beings (namely, the 1-megaverse and
2-megaverse) with contingent parts (i.e., the particles), so they're
false. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Assuming
something like Koons' </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 4"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>axiom
4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
then it's true that a necessary being could only have </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">necessary
parts. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
axiom seems pretty dubious to me, as I've argued </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#axiom 4"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but in any case, that is not a problem for </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypotheses
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
or </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">:
assuming that axiom, it simply wouldn't be the case that particles
are parts of the 1-megaverse or 2-megaverse. That does not seem to be
particularly odd, since we may plausibly understand the particles as
contained in space or spacetime, rather than being parts of it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection7"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>14.7.
Objection 7. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We
can asses by empirical evidence (daily experiences, science, etc.)
that probably, any partially or wholly physical beings are
contingent. Since space, a universe, multiverse, etc., are at least
partially physical, that gives us good reasons to think that any of
those beings is probably contingent. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Similarly,
we may say that we can assess by empirical evidence (daily
experiences, science, etc.) that probably</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>,
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">any concrete being is physical, or
at least partially physical. Hence, since a necessary concrete being
(which here we grant exists) is a concrete being, we have good
reasons to think that any </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">such being is
probably physical, or at least partially physical. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Rejoinder:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Actually,
personal beings and other beings with minds aren't even partially
physical. Our bodies aren't parts of us, and we're wholly
non-physical. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
that would have to be argued for, and the burden would be on the
claimant. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Second,
if that were the case, then we would be able to tell by our daily
experiences that very probably, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">any
wholly non-physical being is contingent. In fact, it seems to me we
would be able to tell that, for </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>every
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">wholly non-physical being we can
tell for sure exists, we've been able to establish, beyond a
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">reasonable doubt, that the being in
question is contingent, whereas we've not been able to establish the
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">same result to the same degree of
confidence in the case of space. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Third,
non-physical or physical, we can tell by empirical evidence that
probably, every agent depends on complex brains, as mentioned
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#mindbrain"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
On the other hand, we do not have any similar evidence supporting the
view that every physical thing depends on an agent. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection8"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>14.8.
Objection 8. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Explanations
of contingent facts, states, situations, etc., are either scientific,
or in terms of the actions </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of
an agent. However, to the best of our knowledge, science only posits
contingent causes, so hypotheses </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
are probably false, and the necessary being that causally explains
contingent ones is plausibly an agent. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Even
if we accept classifying explanations in agential and non-agential,
calling the latter 'scientific' is a misnomer at best, and
potentially confusing. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, let's suppose scientists find a number of mammoth fossils
together and in certain positions, and explain the finding by
positing that a mammoth got stuck in tar, others tried to help her
out, and they all got stuck and died. That's a perfectly good
scientific explanation in the ordinary sense of the expression
'scientific explanation', though apparently, it would not count as
'scientific' under the proposed terminology. This matter is not
crucial to the objection, but the potential for confusion is a
problem for that proposed terminology. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
aside, and more importantly in this context, science does not take a
stance about whether the beings it posits are contingent. In
particular, for example science does not hold that space (as many
dimensions as actually exist) is contingent. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection9"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>14.9.
Objection 9. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We
can tell by empirical evidence (daily experiences, science, etc.)
that probably, essentially temporal beings are contingent. Since
space, a universe, multiverse, etc., are essentially temporal, that
gives us good reasons to think that any such being probably is
contingent, and a necessary concrete being is timeless. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">The
word 'timeless' is not a colloquial term, except </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>perhaps</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
in the sense that, say, a painting is timeless, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">which
is not relevant in this context. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
it seems to me that it's a technical term, and I think it's fair to
ask: what does 'timeless' mean?</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">An
answer stating that X is timeless (by definition) if and only if X
does not stand in temporal relations – or something along those
lines – would not seem to give us any way of grasping the
meaning of 'timeless'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps,
someone might point to propositions, numbers, laws of logic, etc.,
say that those are timeless beings, and suggest that we should grasp
the meaning of the word 'timeless' intuitively, guided by those
examples. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However
– and leaving aside the issue of whether abstracta are beings
-, if she later suggested that, say, a timeless </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
exists, that would look to me like pointing at cars, motorcycles,
trains, planes, bicycles, etc., and say 'those are bluts', and then
suggest that the number 5 or the rules of chess may be </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">bluts.
Personally, I would still be puzzled, wondering what 'blut' (or
'timeless') might mean. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
I recognize that there is a lot more to be said about timelessness,
so let's assume that the concept of a timeless agent is coherent, for
the sake of the argument. The fact that I've not been able to grasp
what 'timeless' means complicates the matters to some extent, but
going by usual claims about what </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">beings
are temporal as a guide, a reply mirroring </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#objection9"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>objection
9 </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">would
be </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">as
follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We
can tell by empirical evidence (daily experiences, science, etc.)
that probably, concrete beings are essentially temporal. Hence, since
a necessary concrete being (which we here assume exists) is a
concrete being, it's probably essentially temporal. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection10"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>14.10.
Objection 10. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
introduce a definition: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">A being X
is </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>essentially spatial</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
if and only if it is essential to X to have at least one spatial
property, like spatial location, or non-zero volume. For instance,
the Sun is essentially spatial, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">because
it is essential to to the Sun to have a spatial location. The Sun's
coordinates in space are contingent properties, but the property of
having a spatial location is essential (i.e., the location </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">isn't
fixed, and needn't be for the purposes of the definition). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now,
we can tell by empirical evidence (daily experiences, science, etc.)
that probably, essentially spatial beings are contingent. That gives
us good reasons to think that space, spacetime, etc., are contingent.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We
may mirror that objection by saying that we can tell by empirical
evidence (daily experiences, science, etc.) that probably, concrete
beings are essentially spatial. Hence, since a necessary concrete
being (which we here assume exists) is a concrete being, we have good
reasons to think it is essentially spatial. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection11"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>14.11.
Objection 11.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
we accept </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#mereological issues"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Koons'
axioms</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
or similar ones, we can tell that the cosmos, universe, etc., are
contingent, so </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
are false.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
argued </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#mereological issues"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>above</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
it seems to me that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">skepticism
about some of those axioms is at least warranted. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Leaving
that aside, and granting Koons' axioms for the sake of the argument,
at most we could tell that the cosmos, the universe, etc., are
contingent in the sense in which Koons uses the terms 'cosmos',
'universe', etc.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, those axioms appear compatible with any of the
hypotheses </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and hence with the necessity of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-megaverse</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2-megaverse</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
or </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3-megaverse</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection12"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>14.12.
Objection 12.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Non-theistic
hypotheses about a necessary universe, megaverse, etc., imply or at
least suggest a multiverse where everything that can physically
happen, does happen. That would make our intuitions about the future
so unreliable that we wouldn't even be able to tell that the future
will resemble the past at all. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Actually,
hypotheses </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
suggest no such thing, and they're non-theistic. They don't even have
a commitment to parallel universes, though they have no commitments
against them, either. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover,
a claim that in a multiverse like that our intuitions about the
future would be unreliable appears unwarranted as well. Their
reliability would depend on issues like how some deterministic or
probabilistic laws are, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection13"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>14.13.
Objection 13. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
constants of the universe are finely tuned for intelligent life.
Regardless of whether there are more dimensions, etc. Hypotheses </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
can't explain that. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While
arguments to design are beyond the scope of this essay, assuming that
there is such thing as fine-tuning</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notedesign"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>6</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
I will make the following point: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
any hypotheses like </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is true, then there is a necessary being with certain causal powers
and dispositions, which </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>already
has</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
the finely-tuned constants, since we live in it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">On
the other hand, a theistic hypothesis posits an </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>extra
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">being with certain specific
psychological </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">makeup, which includes a
propensity to create intelligent life. If the propensity is not
included explicitly, it's allegedly entailed by some other
properties. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">At
any rate, the matter would have to be addressed in terms of
probabilistic arguments, considering many factors. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection14"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>14.14.
Objection 14. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Non-theistic
hypotheses about a necessary megaverse, etc., are epistemically
disastrous, regardless of whether they hold that everything that can
physically happen, happen. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Without
an agential creator, we wouldn't even know whether the laws of nature
are such that everything will change tomorrow and everything we think
we know will turn out to be mistaken; further, if the universe
changes radically, we will all die, or perhaps suffer greatly.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">With
that criterion, we may as well say that if there is an intelligent
necessary agent of great power, she might make everything change
tomorrow, etc. <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><B>Rejoinder: </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We
can plausibly infer some of the psychological properties of a
necessary agent from what we know about minds. She would plausibly
want an ordered universe. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We
can plausibly infer some of the properties of space, time, etc., from
what we observe, and things do not change overnight radically. In
fact, science has being doing that for quite some time already, and
even before modern science, we could already tell some (many) of the
properties. There is no chaos. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Rejoinder:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">All
that order in space, time, etc., is only the way things have been </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>up
till now. </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">If the necessary cause is
not an agent, we have no good reason to think that that won't
radically change tomorrow, resulting in </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">chaos.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">With
that criterion, someone might similarly say that what we know about
minds is only the way things have been </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>up
till know, </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">and that we have no good
reason to think that minds won't radically change </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">tomorrow,
wanting chaos. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
reality of course I do believe we have good reasons to expect that
minds won't radically change like that, but the point here is that
the same seems to apply to non-agential objects. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objection19"></A><A NAME="attributes"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.
Basic attributes of a necessary cause. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">After
deriving the existence of a necessary cause from the premises of his
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#mereological issues"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>cosmological
argument</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
Koons concludes that there is at least one necessary being, and makes
some arguments regarding the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">fundamental
properties of that being. I will grant for the sake of the argument
that a necessary state of affairs includes a necessary being, and
assess some of Koons' arguments. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notation2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.1.
Notation. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons
calls the necessary being 'God', and the fundamental properties
"basic attributes" or "attributes". </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
will call the properties in question 'basic attributes', but I will
not call that being, or beings, 'God', since the term might make the
matter less clear. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="alternative2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>15.2.
More alternative hypotheses.</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
order to assess some of Koons' arguments, I will introduce some new
non-theistic hypotheses about a necessary being, which are more
specific sub-hypotheses of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="H11"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Hypothesis
1.1: </B></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Hypothesis
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is true. Space has infinite volume essentially, as a basic attribute.
Also, space is a unity, and has no parts. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="H31"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Hypothesis
3.1</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">:
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Hypothesis
3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
true. Space has infinite volume essentially, as a basic attribute.
Also, space is a unity, and has no parts. For each of the necessary
particles P, it's necessary that P has some spatial location, but
which </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>exact</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
location P has, is a contingent property, and P's being in a specific
location has at least one cause in the necessary causal powers of
space. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="H12"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Hypothesis
1.2: </B></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Hypothesis
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is true. Space and time are </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#rigiddiscrete"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>rigidly
discrete</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
There is a basic unit of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">time,
and a basic unit of volume. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Before
considering Koons' arguments, I will address a potential objection to
two of the previous hypotheses: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Objection:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Anything
that has a size, has a part of finite size. If space is infinite, it
has a part of finite volume. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
claim that anything that has a size, has a part of finite size does
not appear warranted, and the burden seems to be on the claimant. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Rejoinder:</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">When
we look at space, study it, etc., we often consider finite volumes
only. That suggests that those are parts of space. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That's
a matter of convenience, not a matter of ontology. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
that matter, if Yahweh existed, Christian philosophers would often be
focusing on a limited amount of his knowledge. All of that is to be
expected, given our cognitive limitations, but it does not have
ontological implications. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="necessity"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.3.
Aggregates and necessity. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons
argues that the necessary cause cannot be what he calls a "mere
aggregate", allegedly because if it were an aggregate, it would
have contingent parts. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
does not seem intuitively plausible to me. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, if there is a necessary agent, for all we know, there may
be many necessary agents. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notechristian1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notechristian1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>37</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notechristian1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Together,
those many beings would not seem to make up a unity, but an aggregate
if we accept that there are arbitrary mereological sums, as Koons
seems to. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
suppose that someone might suggest that if they all exist
necessarily, they do not qualify as an aggregate, but I don't see why
not. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, aggregate or not, it seems to me that, for all we know,
even accepting </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#mereologicalissues"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Koons'
axioms</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
there might be many beings with different agendas, if they're agents
at all, or a combination of agents and non-agential necessary beings,
etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="basicattributes"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.4.
Basic attributes, necessity and measurability. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
key claim in Koons' paper seems to be that any measurable property
takes part of the structure of a continuous spectrum, and –
according to Koons -, it's reasonable to make an assumption that we
may state as follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="MAK"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>MA(K,1): For every property P
and for every being B, if P is the property of having some
determinable D to degree x and B has property P, then there is some y
such that B possibly has D to degree x+y, or x-y. </B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">From
that, it follows that no attribute or property that is measurable in
Koons' terminology, can be had essentially or necessarily. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, Koons accepts that it's possible to have properties
that involve whole integers essentially. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
the following subsections, I will take a closer look at </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and some of its consequences. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="abstracta"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.4.1.
Measurability and abstracta. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
every real number x, there is a subset of the set of real numbers
S(x) such that S(x) has Lebesgue </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">measure
x, and it seems that that would be an essential property of the being
S(x), if S(x) were a being. Hence, it seems to me that if </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is true, then a correct ontology does not include such usual
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">mathematical
objects. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
suppose someone may include those objects in an ontology and then
restrict </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to concreta, but it's unclear to me why there would be a difference
between concrete and abstract objects in this regard, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">if
abstracta were beings. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Since
I wouldn't include abstracta in an ontology, that is not a problem
for </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
in my view, but the matter may be relevant for those who do include
abstracta. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="intuitionsmeasure"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.4.2.
Intuitions and measurability. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Leaving
abstracta aside, a question if whether </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is intuitively plausible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Indeed,
it seems Koons' argumentation in support of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
relies entirely upon the alleged a priori </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">intuitive
plausibility of the principle that somehow continuous spectra are
such that if an entity has </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">some
determinable D to degree x, it possibly has D to degree x+y, or x-y. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Personally,
I would say that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
I drop the assumption of essentialism</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
appears intuitively plausible. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteelectrons"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>8</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteelectrons"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
under the assumption of essentialism, it's not at all clear to me
that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is true, or even plausibly true.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Actually,
I have to admit that I don't have any intuitions one way or another
about whether some being B possibly has some property P to degree x
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>essentially</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
would say that least on intuitive grounds (i.e., if we have nothing
else), it seems reasonable to remain </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">undecided
on the matter, neither asserting nor denying </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition to that, if we're assessing the matter intuitively, it seems
to me that the intuitions that allegedly would support </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
are some sort of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability
without visualization</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
intuitions which plausibly also support </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>that
there is no necessary concrete being.</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
And even assuming that there is a necessary concrete being, those
intuitions seem to support the possibility of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Malo"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Malo</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="daily"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.4.3.
Daily experiences, science, and measurability. Mental properties. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition to the aforementioned intuitions, we may assess whether
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is supported by other pieces of evidence, such as what we observe in
daily life, in science, etc. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteintuitions"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>9</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteintuitions"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
that note, it seems that ordinary objects do seem to have properties
to different degrees contingently, but on the other hand, they do not
seem to have properties to an infinite degree, when it makes sense to
have them to an infinite degree. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
while an object that has a property to some determinable degree x
essentially would be different from what we observe in daily life,
the same would be true of an object that had a property to some
infinite degree, when such an infinite degree makes sense. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Ordinary
objects aside, we may also take a look at science: do things
discovered by science support </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
or its negation? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Many
things discovered by science seem to be in line with </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
in a good number of cases in modern physics, it seems to me that the
answer is that the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">objects
in question plausibly do </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>not
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">respect
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
- i.e., </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is probably false -, at least </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
certain properties are part of the continuous spectrum. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, the electric charge of an electron seems not to change at
all, and given essentialism</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteelectrons"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteelectrons"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>8</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteelectrons"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
it seems plausible that it has that property essentially. To be
clear, here I'm assessing evidence from science (I assessed a priori
intuitions </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#intuitionsmeasure"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">),
and the empirical evidence seems to support the hypothesis that
having a certain charge probably is essential to the electron, as
we've not found any </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">exceptions
yet, and the scientific theories positing that such charge does not
change seem to make </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">correct
predictions of observations. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteelectrons2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteelectrons2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>40</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteelectrons2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, if those properties aren't part of a continuous
spectrum, but there is a basic unit (e.g., </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of
electric charge), and the properties in question can only be had in
whole multiples of that basic unit, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that
would not be a difficulty for </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but that would bring up another difficulty for the theistic case,
which I will address </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#discrete3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>in
the next subsection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
based on our present-day evidence and knowledge, it seems to me that
skepticism about </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
remains warranted. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Leaving
those properties aside for now, another body of evidence that may be
relevant to the issue of what properties a necessary concrete being
might have, is the evidence involving some mental properties. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
that note, in our daily experience, mental properties that can be had
to different degrees, like intelligence, knowledge, moral goodness,
or preferences for certain objects, etc., </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notemental12"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notemental12"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notemental12"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">seem
to be contingent properties, but also are not had to an infinite
degree, assuming it makes sense to say that an entity has one of such
properties to an infinite degree. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, if Bob – a human being – is morally good, it
seems that it's a contingent matter how morally good he is, and he's
not infinitely morally good, even assuming it makes sense to say that
someone is infinitely morally good. If to say that someone is
infinitely morally good means (say) that he or she never does
anything immoral, and always tries to do something morally
praiseworthy, then that is also not what we find. The same goes for
other mental properties, and for other animals with minds. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
the evidence that we have so far would seem to suggest that any
entity with mental properties is likely to have the kind of property
considered above to finite degrees – regardless of whether we
can assign a number to it -, and contingently, if it has such a
property at all. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
so, it seems to me that even if there is an agential necessary being,
it's more likely that she too has those properties contingently if
she has them.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To
be clear, I'm not saying that the evidence is so strong that we're
not warranted in remaining also skeptical about the conclusion that
she would instantiate the properties in question contingently, but
merely that that fits the evidence from other agents better than an
alternative. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="discrete3"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.4.4.
Discrete time, space, charge, etc. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
I argued in a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#daily"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>previous
subsection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
properties such as charge, magnetic momentum, etc., can only be had
in whole numbers of minimum units, then some evidence from modern
physics is not a problem for </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Here,
I'd like to mention the epistemic possibility that that is in fact
the case, and that also space and time are discrete, and there is a
minimum unit of time and of volume. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
that is the case, then using numbers other than whole integers to
describe volumes, durations, charge, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">etc.,
is an imprecision, or a matter of convenience, or both, but it has no
ontological relevance. </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Ontologically
speaking, if those properties are only had in whole numbers of basic
units, they all avoid </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
even if </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is true, given that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons
makes an exception to such properties, which would count as
immeasurable. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="probameasure"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.4.5.
Probabilistic assessments.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps,
someone might suggest that even without assuming that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is true, if B is a being and </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P
is a property that can be had to degree x, for any real number x, or
to an infinite degree, it would be more probable than B has P
essentially to an infinite degree.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
consider two different hypothesis:</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. B
essentially has property P to an infinite degree. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. There is
some real number x, such that B has property x to degree x. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
my assessment, there is no way of telling a priori, for all B and P,
whether a. is more or less probable than b. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems to me that that depends on other properties of B, what P is,
etc., and sometimes – or many times – we may not even
have a way of making an a priori probabilistic assessment. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="spatial"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.5.
Spatial and temporal location. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons'
argues that the first cause cannot be essentially located in time or
space, not even in the whole of space or time, because allegedly in
that case, the first cause would have parts that have measurable
attributes. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet,
the conclusion appears unwarranted even granting </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
for the sake of the argument, for the following reasons: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
according to hypothesis </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H11"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1.1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
space is a unity and has no parts, so space would not have any parts
of finite size. </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Similar
considerations apply in the case of time; for instance, perhaps
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">true,
and spacetime is a unity. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
same is true of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H31"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
3.1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second,
in the case of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H31"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
3.1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
each necessary particle P would be essentially located in space </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and
time (or spacetime, etc.) in the sense that, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>necessarily</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
P would have </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>some
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">spatiotemporal
location. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
P would not have any </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>specific
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">location
in space or time essentially. So, since the specific location would
be a contingent property, there would seem to be no violation of
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, if </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is construed as entailing that being essentially located in space and
time </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">but
not in a </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>specific</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
place is also impossible, then I would say that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is almost certainly false, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">considering
usual examples. For instance, it seems clear to me that, say, a
mosquito, a virus or planet Earth is essentially located in space and
time, even though not in any specific location, assuming
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">essentialism.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Third,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">there
are are basic, minimum units of space and of time, then it seems
space and time avoid </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
altogether – it's a 'whole integers' case -, even if </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Thus,
it appears that Koons is implying that space and time are not
necessarily </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#rigiddiscrete"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>rigidly
discrete</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
my assessment, taking no stance on the matter seems epistemically
acceptable given our present degree of knowledge – for some of
us, at least. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="continuous"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.6.
Personhood and degrees. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This
subsection is a bit of a side note, but I'd like to address an issue
related to personhood. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
his paper, Koons claims that while </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is true, properties involving finite whole integers count as
immeasurable and can be had essentially. As an example, he mentions
the property of "existing as three persons". </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Existence
isn't a property in my assessment, and in any case, a being that is
three persons doesn't make sense to me. But that's not the matter I'd
like to tackle here. The matter I'd like to address is whether
personhood is a degreed property. Koons seems to assume that it
isn't. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
may be a usual view, but is a view that I would like to challenge in
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#continuous"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
subsection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To
do that, I will present both a developmental and an evolutionary
argument. Also, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
will drop the assumption of essentialism for the rest of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#continuous"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
subsection.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteessential"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteessential"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteessential"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="development"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.6.1.
Development. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
consider first Komodo dragonhood – i.e., the property of being
a Komodo dragon -, and the following scenario: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A female Komodo dragon is in a
zoo. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There are
no males and no artificial fertilization, so she reproduces by means
of parthenogenesis. She produces some ova. Each of those individual
cells</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekomodo"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notekomodo"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is not a Komodo dragon. However, one of those ova undergoes a process
that eventually results in an adult male Komodo dragon. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Assuming
that Komodo dragonhood is not measurable, it seems to me that if time
is continuous, there are two temporal intervals (t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">)
and [t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">),
or (t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]
and (t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
t</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3</FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">),
such that there is no entity that is a Komodo dragon at all in the
first interval, but there is one that is a Komodo dragon in the
second. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteimprecise"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>44</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteimprecise"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">If
time isn't continuous, we may go from the ovum to the adult dragon,
say, one Planck time at a time, and so there is a time t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>4
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">such that, at t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>4</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
there is no Komodo dragon, but at t</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>4
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">plus one Planck time, there </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">is
an entity that is fully a Komodo dragon. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Either
way, that result appears </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>extremely</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
implausible, since the change from ovum to Komodo dragon is gradual,
not in leaps. Even in the Planck time case, the steps are </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>very</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
short. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
it seems to me that, plausibly, Komodo dragonhood can be had to
different degrees. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
now consider personhood, i.e., the property of being a person. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
human embryo is plausibly not a person. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notenofact"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notenofact"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet,
it may undergo a process that eventually results in a person. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
conclusion seems to be as in the case of the Komodo dragon. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
somewhat similar scenario, which avoids the issue of whether an
embryo is a person but is considerably more tentative, would be as
follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In a
distant future, some genetically modified humans reproduce via
parthenogenesis.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">Now, a
human </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>ovum </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">is
not a person. But in some cases, human ova undergo processes that
result in a person. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
conclusion is the same in this case too. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
reproductive parthenogenesis in mammals seems to be a problem, but
given thousands or even millions of years of advances in
biotechnology – including genetic engineering -, it may well be
doable. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
also, someone might suggest or claim that personhood begins when a
soul enters a body, and it happens instantaneously or something like
that. But we needn't assume that. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="evolution"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>15.6.2.
Evolution. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
second argument for the claim that personhood can be had to different
degrees is evolutionary. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#development"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>before</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
let's begin with Komodo dragonhood. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Komodo
dragons, like humans, evolved form unicellular organisms that weren't
Komodo dragons. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
there appears to be no entity that was fully a Komodo dragon, but
hatched from eggs that were laid by an entity that was not at all a
Komodo dragon. Biological evolution is gradual and even quite slow by
our daily standards, even when it happens at what biologists may call
a very fast pace. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
supports also the view that Komodo dragonhood is a degreed property. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
same gradualism happened in the evolution of other animals, including
humans. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">To
be clear, I do not claim that only individuals of our species are
persons. Maybe, say, Homo Erectus were persons too – or maybe
they were persons </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>to some degree.</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">The
point I'm trying to get at here is that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>whatever</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
properties humans normally have, including </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>mental</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
properties, it seems very probable that some of our ancestors
normally had those properties </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>to a
different degree. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given
that, it seems very probable that personhood can be had to different
degrees. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
theists might claim that, say, the first persons to be born on Earth
were born to parents who were not persons by means of a miracle, or
that some entities that were non-essentially non-persons were
transformed into persons by God, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
we don't have an epistemic obligation to assume that, and as a
non-theist assessing the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">evidence
from </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#evolution"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>evolution</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
plus the evidence from </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#development"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>development</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
it seems to me that personhood is a property that can be had in
degrees, even if that view is not usually held. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="togod"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.
Power, agency, knowledge and moral goodness. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this section, I will consider some paths from a necessary being to
God presented by Joshua Rasmussen</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#joshua3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>46</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">],
and raise some difficulties for those paths. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="N"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000080">I will
grant for the sake of the argument </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">not
only that there is a necessary concrete being </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>N</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
but also that the obtaining of at least some states of affairs can
only be causally explained by </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>N</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="terminology1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.1.
Terminology. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="grid"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I will follow the paper's
terminology, basically: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
gridscape S is a state of affairs consisting in some objects, the
x's, instantiating some intrinsic properties or relations P's. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
wholly contingent gridscape is one in which all of the P's are
instantiated not necessarily by the x's. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="libertarian1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.2.
Libertarian freedom. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
path to volitional agency is based on a distinction between agent
causation and causation by non-agents. According to that distinction,
beings cause things by being in a certain way, or by means of
exercising volitional agency, and the exercise of that agency isn't
logically determined by the way they are. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notelfw2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>7</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notelfw2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
would say that skepticism about that is at least warranted </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notefw"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>8</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notefw"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and the burden to show a libertarian </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">account
of freedom is the correct understanding of freedom would seem to be
on the claimant. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
aside, it seems to me that even showing that a libertarian account of
freedom is the correct account of freedom would not suffice to clear
this path to agency, even if some other assumptions are granted. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, and regardless of any other considerations, the path to
agency seem to be blocked by some potential beings, like a
non-agential necessary concrete being, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
– perhaps </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>space,
as in </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypothesis
1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
may be something else – that deterministically brings about
certain kind of complex beings that are agents, and then those agents
act non-deterministically based on different </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">volitions.
Those agents needn't be as intelligent as humans – e.g., maybe
much less complexity than a </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">human
brain might suffice for volitional agency to start. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
those agents would not exist necessarily: they would be brought about
necessarily, but they would come into existence and eventually cease
to exist. That alternative does not seem to result in any </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">consistency
problems, even assuming a libertarian account of freedom. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteproba2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>49</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteproba2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps,
someone might argue that libertarian freedom requires souls, but that
would require a separate argument. Moreover, even that would not be
enough, it seems to me, since that would not rule out souls that are
brought about by deterministic non-agential causes alone. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteproba2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>9</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteproba2"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="degreed"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.3.
Degreed properties.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This
paper uses a premise </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">similar
to </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">which
I addressed </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There
is a difference, th</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">ough:
Rasmussen' makes no exception for whole numbers. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notechristian"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>50</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notechristian"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems to me that skepticism about that premise is justified, since
the same reasons given </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
apply </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">here as well, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">just
leaving the parts about whole numbers aside. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="causal7"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.4.
The causal principle. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
causal principle used in all of these paths to different theistic
properties is: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="CPR7"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>CP(R,7):
For every wholly contingent </B></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#grid"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>gridscape</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>S,
it is possible that S's obtaining is causally explained. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
explained in the paper, the principle should be understood as
follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. A causal explanation does not
have to be sufficient to bring about its effect. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. Every property or relation in
S is causally explained, considering a). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c. One of the explanatory causes
is a concrete object or an event that is not in S. If it's an event,
it may involve an object in S. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
Rasmussen points out, the principle is more modest than a number of
other principles. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">However,
while it's true that other theist philosophers have used stronger
principles, condition c) requires an </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>external
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">cause, and that's still is a
condition that may block infinite regress in many scenarios, and
seems to have the potential to erase all causes from a causal
account, for all we know, as </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">in some
cases I analyzed earlier in this essay. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While
here I'm assuming for the sake of the argument that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
exists, that does not require assuming that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
principle that removes causes from a causal account in that fashion
is true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
we assume not only that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
exists, but that that is a conclusion reached by means </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">of
one of the usual principles defended by theists, assuming </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CPR7"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(R,7)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
seems adequate. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="finite"></A><A NAME="infinite"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.5.
Infinite power. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
paper shows two paths to infinite power. The first one relies upon a
principle similar to </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
I </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">addressed
that matter </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#degreed"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
second path does not require </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#MAK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>MA(K,1)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
based on a principle that can be stated as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="CPR8"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>CP(R,8):
For every wholly contingent </B></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#grid"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>gridscape</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>G,
there is another possible wholly contingent gridscape G', such that
the power required to bring about G' is greater than the </B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>power
required to bring about G. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Briefly,
my assessment is as follows: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. The
principle in question looks more intuitive to me than its negation,
but not enough for me to </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">be
convinced. Moreover, my assessment of the principle is based on the
same kind of intuitions </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that
tell me that for every being, there is a more powerful possible one,
or that it's possible for the being in question not to exist, etc.
But those intuitions seem to be </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>very</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
problematic if </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
exists, which I'm granting in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#togod"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
section</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
for the sake of the argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
personally, I find the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Malo"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Malo</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, or the </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">no
less intuitively plausible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. Granting
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#CPR8"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>CP(R,8)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
this path to infinite power seems to remain blocked in my view,
because it seems to me that we're warranted in remaining skeptical
about the possibility of a maximal wholly contingent gridscape, for
similar reasons to the reasons given </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#maximalcontingent"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier,
in the context of </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#maximalcontingent"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>assessing
the possibility of contingent states of existence that are maximal
with respect to </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#maximalcontingent"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>contingent
concrete objects</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
However, if there are no such maximal gridscapes, the following </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">might
happen: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
does not have the power to bring about any being but K(1),
K(2),...K(n), for some fixed </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">natural
number n, and some fixed beings K(j). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.79in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
does not have the power to bring about arbitrarily difficult
gridscapes, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
can bring about some of the K(j), and they have the power to bring
about some other beings. Some of those other beings have the power to
bring about more powerful beings, and so on, so that for every wholly
contingent </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#grid"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>gridscape</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
G, there is a possible contingent being C(G) with the power to bring
it about, and that being can be brought about by a causal chain
started by </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
can't guarantee that C(G) or G will be brought about, or anything
even close to that. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Under that
scenario, even if for every possible wholly contingent gridscape G
there is possible wholly contingent gridscape G' such that G' is more
difficult to bring about than G and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>a</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">cause
of G', it seems to me it would not be adequate to say that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is infinitely powerful. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
a related note, even the causal power to be one of the causes of any
metaphysically possible state of affairs might end up being pretty
limited, and then describing an object like </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
as having infinite power </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">might
be misleading in my assessment. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
example, it seems to me that time</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notetime"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notetime"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notetime"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
may be relative in a way such that it's </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>actually</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
impossible for every </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>actual</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
being to transmit information faster than the speed of light, within
the universe at least. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
then, if time is relative in that fashion, let's say that there are
astronauts on Mars, and one of them asks </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to, say, establish a communication between her (i.e., the astronaut)
and her loved ones on Earth, with no more than a, say, five seconds
delay (or five minutes, for that matter). Then, it seems </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
does </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">not
have the means to grant the request, even if </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is aware of the request and wants to grant it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
if that is the case, then it's clear to me that no being has any
power remotely like that ascribed to God by any of the predominant
religions and/or in the context of philosophy of religion. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
that scenario, saying that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
has infinite power would be misleading in my assessment, even if </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">necessarily
is </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>one
of</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
the causes of any metaphysically possible state of affairs. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="agency"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.6.
Agency. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
addition to the matter of agent causation vs. non-agential causation
– which I addressed </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#libertarian1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
-, the path to agency relies on the assessment that having the
property to bring about some states according to some probability
function F is not an essential property. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
assessment is based on considerations similar to those used in the
case of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#degreed"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>degreed
properties</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and I would say that skepticism about that assessment is justified,
for similar reasons as in the case of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#degreed"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>degreed
properties</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="knowledge"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.7.
Infinite knowledge. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
path to infinite knowledge relies on considerations similar to those
given in support of the claim that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
has infinite power, plus the conclusion that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is an agent, so the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#libertarian1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>points</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
I </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#agency"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>raised</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#finite"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>earlier</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
apply in </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
case as well. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="goodness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.8.
Infinite goodness.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Rasmussen
also offers a path to infinite goodness, and he also explains several
of the difficulties very clearly. I will not raise any of those
objections here, though. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Instead,
I will raise a very different kind of difficulty. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notemeta"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notemeta"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>2</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notemeta"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Briefly,
the idea is to raise the issue of potential alien minds, and assess
the consequences.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This
kind of objection is not specific to the theistic arguments presented
in the paper under </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">consideration.
Moreover, in my assessment, the objections I will raise in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#goodness"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
subsection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
present a significant difficulty for many other theistic views and
arguments as well – or potential ones -, such as </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">–
purely for example – any argument intended to establish that a
being with maximal knowledge and freedom would be morally perfect –
or at least morally good -, or that there is a maximally great entity
– where 'greatness' is partially defined in moral terms –,
etc., since those arguments and views would </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">have
to address the issue of minds like the ones I will outline, and
similarly many other potential alien minds. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
in the next subsections, I will present scenarios that, in my
assessment, we're not justified in deeming impossible or even
probably impossible</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notealiens4"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>3</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notealiens4"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and then consider objections to them, and to my assessments based on
them. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="alien"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.8.1.
The problem of [potential] alien minds.</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
let's consider the following scenario: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="zurkovians"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On a distant planet in another
galaxy, some intelligent, self-aware, social beings evolved, but they
evolved from different unicellular organisms, and they evolved in an
ancestral environment that was quite different from our human
ancestral environment, and even their present-day environment is
quite different from ours. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For example, many of the organic
molecules that were common in their ancestral environment were
unusual or non-existent in ours, and vice versa, and the same goes
for their and our present-day environments respectively. Also, for
instance, the spectrum of their star is different from that of the
Sun, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In particular – and more
relevantly here -, they also evolved in a considerably different
social environment. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">These aliens – let's call
them 'zurkovians', to give them a name -, have an average IQ far
higher than that of humans. They have something similar to human
color vision, and there are objects that </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">they
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">perceive in a way similar
to the way humans perceive red objects.</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteinverted"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>4</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteinverted"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
Some other objects are perceived by them in a way similar to the way
humans perceive green objects. </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
the electromagnetic frequencies associated with those perceptions are
very different from those associated with similar perceptions in
humans. In fact, the zurkovian visible spectrum is not even the same
as the human visible spectrum. </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notespectra"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notespectra"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, zurkovians have a different
visual system, including different eyes and brain. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In particular, red traffic lights
and green traffic lights here on Earth are the same zurkovian-color,
or z-color. On the other hand, on their planet, zurkovians have
signals that they perceive differently, while humans would not be
able to tell the difference with human eyes. So, whatever zurkovians
perceive in a way similar to the way we perceive red (z-red for
short) is not the same as red, z-green is not the same as green, etc.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Zurkovians also have something
like a sense of smell, and there are some things on their planet that
would normally cause in them perceptions and/or sensations similar to
those we humans have when we smell some things on Earth</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notesmell"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>6</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notesmell"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but associated with very different chemical </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">compositions.
</FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, zurkovians have something
like our sense of beauty, but associated with considerable </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">different
objects, shapes, etc. In particular, a rose would be perceived
differently by them</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noterose"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noterose"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>6</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noterose"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and they would no doubt qualify a beautiful rose as z-ugly. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover, if they were shown
something (say, an image on a computer screen) that looks to them
more or less like a beautiful rose looks </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>to
us</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"> (e.g., a similar
mental image), they would </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>still
</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">classify the image as
z-ugly, as their psychological makeup is quite different.</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteneander"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>8</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteneander"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There are some similarities in
their attraction to some kind of symmetric shapes, but that's as far
as the similarities go, in terms of beauty vs. z-beauty. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Similarly, zurkovians have
something similar to a moral sense, and reactions similar to how
humans (who aren't psychopaths, etc.) react when making moral
assessments; in other words, they have feelings similar to guilt,
feelings similar to how we humans often feel when we become aware
that we have a moral obligation, etc., and generally something like
our moral motivations, but associated with different behaviors,
including different agents carrying them out – though there are
<I>some</I> similarities. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In particular, zurkovians are
motivated by their z-moral assessments more or less as humans are
motivated by moral assessments. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems to me that zurkovians are not only conceivable, but moreover,
given what we know about evolution and how minds are adapted to their
environments, we shouldn't rule out scenarios more or less similar to
that. <I>Maybe</I> that won't happen, but we do not know enough about
exobiology to rule them out – though in this context, all that
is needed is that some of us are justified in not ruling them out. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="kitonians"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Additionally, we may consider
scenarios with different aliens who evolved elsewhere, and who do not
have anything even similar to a moral sense.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Purely
for example, it seems to me that aliens with an average IQ greater
than that of humans but who aren't social beings may have evolved
from something more or less similar to, say, octopuses, or generally
from non-social or mostly non-social organisms, on one of the many
planets in one of the – at least – many billions of
galaxies in our universe. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
let's consider the following scenario: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Kitonians
evolved on yet another planet, in the same galaxy as the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
On average, they </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">have
higher IQ than humans, though not nearly as high as that of
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Kitonians are not social beings,
and do not have anything that resembles our moral sense, or any of
the feelings normally associated with it in humans. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In particular, they do not make
any judgments similar to moral judgments, do not experience feelings
such as guilt, or how we humans may feel when we become aware that we
have a moral obligation, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, in particular, there are
significant differences in what humans and kitonians value, and how
they value. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For instance, we humans value
some entities, actions, etc., because of moral issues. We also value
some entities, actions, etc., for other reasons (e.g., I may value
the ice-cream in the refrigerator because I like it, but that's not
related moral issues). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Kitonians too value some
entities, actions, etc. However, like octopuses, they never value
anything because of moral issues, since they simply do not have
morality, or anything that resembles morality. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="VK"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover, normal kitonians do
have some shared species-wide value function – say, V(K) -, in
addition to some individual values that they may get during their
development, and which vary from individual to individual. However,
the V(K) are in many ways very different from what humans value. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, in short, kitonians don't
care at all about moral good or evil, but they care about other
things. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
in the case of the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
I do not see any good reason to conclude that kitonians aren't
possible, or even that something similar to them isn't actual. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Some
interesting questions (in my view) would be: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. Would
the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
be </FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#moralagent"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>moral
agents</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">?
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. What
about </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#kitonians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>kitonians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">?
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c. Would it
be proper to call </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#kitonians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>kitonians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
'evil' because they do not care about morality, but something else,
or would they be </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#moralagent"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>non-moral
agents</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
like octopuses, even if far more intelligent? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, it seems to me that these agents would be intelligent, free
agents who would not care about morality one way or another. Someone
might suggest that they wouldn't be free, but I see no reason to
suspect so. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would seem to care about z-morality, whereas </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#kitonians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>kitonians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would not care about anything that resembles morality. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of
course, there are plenty more potential aliens. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">My
point here is that, when assessing the potential psychological (i.e.,
mental) makeup of a [potential] necessary agential creator, it seems
to me we can't rule out beforehand a mind with propensities far
removed from those of humans, or of any primates who evolved on
Earth. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">If
that is correct, then that seems to be a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>very
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">serious difficulty for any argument
to moral goodness, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">moral perfection,
etc., especially if it's meant to be persuasive to people who are
being rational but aren't </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>already</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
theists, and are also looking at a large body of evidence, including
evidence from </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">present-day science. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
the next subsections, I will consider some potential objections to my
scenarios and assessments. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="aobjection1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.8.1.1.
Theism and alien minds. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Objection:</B></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">You're
assuming non-theism, because if theism is true, that kind of beings
are impossible, at least with respect to morality, and perhaps
beauty. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
I'm not assuming non-theism, but I'm not assuming theism, either. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I'm
just making an assessment about what </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>might</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
happen, based on what we know about the world around us, including
the evolution of minds. I do not need to assume that the process is
not guided, but just refrain from assuming it is guided. </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notenoguided"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[5</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>9</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notenoguided"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second,
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">theism
entails such bold claims about exobiology</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepoe"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>60</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#notepoe"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
I would say that the problem is for theism, or more precisely for the
justification of theistic belief, since we don't seem to have any
means at this point to assess whether there are some aliens similar
to the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">or
the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#kitonians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>kitonians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
a theist might claim that the justification is precisely theism, or
some other pieces of evidence (including intuitions) that allegedly
justify their theistic belief. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
disagree, but in any case, when assessing arguments for theism, we
are surely justified in not assuming theism, and without that
assumption, it seems to me that for all we know, something similar to
those aliens may well be possible, or even actual. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="morality3"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.8.1.2.
Objective morality and alien minds. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>Objection:</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
something like </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
(or maybe even </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#kitonians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>kitonians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">)
were possible, there would be no objective morality. But we can tell
that there is objective morality, since, say, the Holocaust was
immoral. Hence, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
or anything like them, are impossible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
I see no good reason to believe that statements like 'the Holocaust
was immoral' entail any bold claims about exobiology, and in my
assessment, whoever makes that claim would have the burden to make
their case. Indeed, it would be very odd if our daily assessments
about moral right and wrong committed us to claims about what kind of
intelligent living organisms inhabit other planets, if any of them
does. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
for instance, let's consider the color case: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">What
may have evolved on other planets has nothing to do with whether,
say, Joe ignored a red traffic light. That the traffic light was not
z-red is irrelevant. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Similarly,
it seems to me that some roses and some paintings are beautiful,
regardless of what may happen or may have happened in other planets,
or what normal </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would say about them if </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">they
saw them, and even regardless of whether those roses and/or paintings
are z-beautiful, z-ugly, or z-something-in-between. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
then, also similarly, it seems to me that the Holocaust was immoral,
regardless of what evolved elsewhere in the universe, or whether it
was z-immoral. For that matter, perhaps, humans aren't z-moral
beings, so nothing we can do is z-right or z-wrong, but that seems
unimportant when it comes to making moral assessments. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Granted,
someone might claim that in the case of beauty and/or in the moral
case, what happens on other galaxies </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>is</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
relevant, and so the cases above are not all relevantly similar. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
that seems very counterintuitive to me. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, let's say that in the distance future, humans or very
intelligent people who evolved from humans (via genetic engineering,
etc.) make contact with aliens similar to </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Should
those people then conclude that, say, Pol Pot did not do anything
immoral, if they ponder the matter? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">I
find that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>extremely</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
implausible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Generally,
it would seem </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>very</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
odd to me that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>any </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">sort
of first contact would warrant or even provide any support for the
metaethical hypothesis </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that there are
no moral truths</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">, or </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that
we have no moral knowledge,</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> etc.,
regardless of what the psychological makeup of the extraterrestrials
in question turns </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">out to be. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second,
and with respect to the claim of objectiveness, I would say the
following: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">If
Joe is accused of crossing on a red traffic light, using a usual,
intuitive grasp of the terms as they're colloquially used, I would
say that there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether he
did cross on a red traffic light, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>regardless</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
of the result of any philosophical discussion on whether the relation
between color perception and the human mind and/or eyes implies that
color properties are mind-dependent in some technical sense. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, mind-independent or not, Joe crossed on a red traffic light
(or didn't, but let's say he did), and if someone claims that the
traffic light wasn't red, she's making a false claim. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
similarly, as long as the same holds for morality (e.g., many of the
actions of Pol Pot were evil, and if anyone claims otherwise, she's
making a false claim), that seems to suffice in this context. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="aobjection3"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.8.1.3.
Human moral knowledge and alien minds. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Objection:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
something like </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
(or maybe some of the other aliens) were possible, we would have no
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
knowledge. For instance, how would we know that humans got the right
morality, and zurkovians got the wrong one? Why would humans be the
special ones? Why should we assume that they got it wrong? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
we can tell that the Holocaust was immoral. Hence, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
or anything like them, are </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">impossible.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
reply is similar to the reply to the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#morality3"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>previous
objection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
but briefly: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
as above, I do not see any good reason to think that moral knowledge
has anything to do with what may have evolved on distant planets. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second,
we have knowledge about color, and if there are </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
they have knowledge about z-color. Similarly, we have knowledge about
beauty, and if there are </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
it seems to me that they have knowledge about z-beauty. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Why
would moral knowledge be any different? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It
seems to me that the burden would be on the claimant; as for me, I
make no claim that humans are somehow an exception. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, even if for whatever reason </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
or similar </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>social</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
beings turn out to be impossible, something like </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#kitonians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>kitonians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
or other non-social beings would still pose a similar problem in the
context of assessing the character of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
assuming that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is an agent. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="universal"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.8.1.4.
Morality and some different alien minds. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Objection:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Even
if something like </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is possible or even actual, that would not imply that they have some
zurkovian morality, or "z-morality" instead of morality,
even if their minds are very different from ours. Rather, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would simply have a </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>moral
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">sense
that tells them what's morally right or wrong </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>for
</I></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to do, and they would have no knowledge about what's morally wrong,
good, etc. for </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>humans
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">to
do, and similarly our knowledge would be about humans. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">What's
morally good, bad, etc., for an agent to do depends on a number of
other, non-moral mental properties of the agent, in addition to the
relations she's in. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
is an interesting objection.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
if correct, it would create a different sort of problem for theistic
arguments: if entities with very different mental makeup could be
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#moralagent"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>moral
agents</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
that may do immoral or morally good things that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">we
wouldn't be able to understand as such, then it seems to me that
whether a necessary creator would be morally good or bad would be
inscrutable, since we would have no way of assessing how she would
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">behave
if she were morally good, or how she would behave if she were morally
bad. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, if this objection is correct and zurkovians (or something
like them) exist, then for all we know, it may be that it's not
morally wrong for </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to invade the planet inhabited by the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#kitonians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>kitonians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
kill them off and get the planet's resources for themselves –
or just invade Earth and do the </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">same
to humans. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
other words, if moral language is such that even alien minds like
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would have morality and a moral sense – rather than z-morality
and a z-moral sense -, then we're not in a position to assess </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">what
kind of behavior a morally good or morally bad entity would exhibit,
as long as the entity in </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">question
has a mind considerable different from that of humans, and we do not
know that an agential creator would have a mind similar to that of
humans in the relevant sense. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
aside, even if any sufficiently intelligent </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>social</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
beings would have intuitions similar to our moral intuitions (i.e.,
no z-morality, and no different moral intuitions), including perhaps
even similar psychological reactions (e.g., guilt), that would not
resolve the problem of aliens who do not care about morality at all,
like </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#kitonians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>kitonians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="donotcare"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.8.1.5.
Alien minds without morality or anything like it. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Objection:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Even
if </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#kitonians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>kitonians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">are
possible, the necessary being </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
plausibly would have moral goodness to an infinitely positive degree,
but </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#VK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>V(K)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to an infinite negative degree, or not at all. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><BR></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Assuming
that having moral goodness to an infinite degree makes sense, then
the problem is that, for all we know, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#N"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>N</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
might have </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#VK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>V(K)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to an infinite degree, and thus not care about morality at all. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
I've not specified what </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#VK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>V(K)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
actually is, but that's not required. On the contrary, the
(epistemic) possibility of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>many
different </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">such
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#VK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>V(K)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and generally many different alien minds, only </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">seems
to compound the problem of potential alien minds. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Rejoinder:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We
already know that moral goodness is a metaphysically possible
property, but we do not know that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">it's
metaphysically possible that a being with an IQ greater than the
average human IQ possibly does not care about morality at all, but
has some value function </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#VK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>V(K)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Reply:
</B></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet,
it seems clear to me that we're not justified in ruling out something
like </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#VK"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>V(K)</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, I don't see any good reasons that would allow us to rule
out a scenario like the one I suggested earlier, namely that in one
of the (at least) many billions of galaxies in our universe, some
non-social beings with an average IQ higher than that of humans may
have evolved from something similar to octopuses. Octopuses are
merely an example, of course. There are different ways in which, for
all we know, non-social beings with an IQ higher than that of humans
might evolve, and which we have no good reasons to rule out, in my
assessment. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">In
any case, even a weaker claim would suffice as a reply to this
rejoinder, namely that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>at least</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
some </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">of us are justified in refraining
from reaching that conclusion about exobiology – though I doubt
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">anyone is. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="conclusion"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Conclusion.
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">After
considering several arguments from contingency, and taking a look at
a broad amount of evidence, in my assessment it's probable that there
is no necessary concrete being.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Assuming
there is necessary concrete being, though, in my assessment, we're
justified in not concluding that it's an agent. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Furthermore,
even assuming that there is a necessary agent, it seems to me that
we're at least justified in not concluding that the agent in question
is morally good.</FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteevil"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>[</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteevil"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>6</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#noteevil"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notesreferences"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Notes
and references. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-top: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notewater"></A><A NAME="notecontra"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[1] It seems to me that in order
to look for contradictions when testing metaphysical possibility, we
should take into account potential cases in which the semantics of a
term fixes the referent to be the actual referent. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-top: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">For
instance, my impression is that we can tell by conceptual analysis
that in any possible scenario 'water is ABC' is true if and only if
'water is ABC' is actually true. We do not need to know that water is
H</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">O
in order to reach that conclusion, but rather, we are (potentially)
able to reach that conclusion only by our grasp of the meaning of the
word 'water'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-top: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">If so,
while a scenario in which water is not H</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">O
is not strictly logically impossible (e.g., we may </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">consistently
stipulate that science got it wrong), there is a contradiction </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>once
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">we factor in that water is actually
H</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">O.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-top: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">That said,
the issue of whether necessarily, water is H</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SUB>2</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">O,
is disputed as well, but if it's not, then I </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">would
still say that fixed referents ought to be taken into consideration
when assessing metaphysical </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">possibility,
even if that particular example does not work. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-top: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If no referent is fixed in that
manner, then it's not clear to me that there is any metaphysical
modality that is different from strict logical modality (or, if there
is any difference, strict logical modality plus analytical
equivalences), which would seem to even more clearly indicate that
there is no metaphysically necessary being. Of course, I will not
assume that in this essay. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notespecified"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[2] It is true that the scenarios
are not completely specified, but that does not appear to be a
problem. In fact, it seems to me we can hardly ever <I>completely
</I>specify a scenario. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notecant"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[3] Here, <FONT COLOR="#000000">I'm
just using the word 'can' in an ordinary sense, which I think is
clear enough given context, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">so this
shouldn't cause confusion. If there is any difficulty</FONT>, for the
purposes of the matter at hand, it's enough to say that we have not
fully visualized and will not fully visualize those objects. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteghost"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[4] Granted, a non-theist who
believes that unembodied intelligent beings are possible may well not
have a problem with those alternatives, but they seem to be a problem
for most forms of theism. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteintuition"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[4] The evidence may well include
intuitions, and if we use 'intuition' in a broad sense, arguably it
always does. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notekalam"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[5] The reply to the Kalam
Cosmological Argument can be read <A CLASS="western" HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-reply-to-kalam-cosmological-argument.html">here</A>,
or download from <A CLASS="western" HREF="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0mQAE95lvhxVUZ2MGNYWFRqRlk/edit">here</A>
(in .html format), or from <A CLASS="western" HREF="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0mQAE95lvhxRUNjUGZhcnNEMVk/edit">here</A>
(in .pdf format). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notepresent"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[6] That
would be debatable on presentism, which is precisely the theory of
time that Craig defends. But let's grant for the sake of the argument
that no actual infinity entails no infinite past, even on presentism.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notecraig2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">[</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">7</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">]
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair,
"The Kalam Cosmological Argument", in "The BlackWell
Companion to Natural Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and
J. P. Moreland, © 2009 Blackwell </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">Publishing
Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notehotel2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[8] Greater
infinities would not make a relevant difference, so one may assume a
larger infinity for that matter, and essentially the same
counterarguments would work just as well. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="pruss2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[9] Sources: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2009/10/from-grim-reape.html</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/10/from-grim-reaper-paradox-to-kalaam.html</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>More
details on the definition of Aristotelian discreteness suggested by
Pruss:
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2009/10/from-grim-reape.html#comment-107238</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>While
Pruss' does not seem to explicitly say that, under Aristotelian
discreteness, it's <I>necessary</I> that there are only finitely many
moments or intervals between two given times. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
it's clear in context that his conception of time that is discrete in
an Aristotelian sense rules out <I>that time is possibly dense. </I>On
that note, he gives an argument against infinite regress assuming
that time is Aristotelian discrete, and in which he concludes that
the mere possibility of temporal density would contradict the
assumption that time is discrete in an Aristotelian sense. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="pruss1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[10] Source: Alexander Pruss, in
"The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument", in "The
BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology", Edited by William Lane
Craig and J. P. Moreland, © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN:
978-1-405-17657-6. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Pruss'
defense of Leibnizian arguments can be found in the following page:
https://bearspace.baylor.edu/Alexander_Pruss/www/papers/LCA.html</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notekoonsreapers"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[11] Sources: Koons, R. C.
(2012), A New Kalam Argument: Revenge of the Grim Reaper. Noûs.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2012.00858.x </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">http://www.robkoons.net/media/83c9b25c56d629ffffff810fffffd524.pdf</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteset"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[12] Koons uses the word "set",
but it's not entirely clear to me that that would be a set. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, for all I know, there might be a possible world W with
physical structures of cardinality x, for any cardinal x. If so, the
class of spatio-temporal regions of W would appear not to be a set. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
I prefer to use the word 'class'. In any case, this is a side issue. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteshandy"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">[1</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">3</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">]
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">Josh Dever, in "Worlds Apart"</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>,
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">Taiwanese Journal for Philosophy and
History of Science, 10 (1998), pointed out that the scenario is
contradictory. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This
was also pointed out by Graham Oppy, in "Arguing about Gods",
Cambridge University Press (2006). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteleap"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">[1</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">4</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">]
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">I'm stipulating 1 year = 365 days and
ignoring leap years, for the sake of simplicity; a more complicated
proof would include leap years, but it's clear that the contradiction
does not depend on whether we </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">take into
consideration </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">leap years. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
the assumption that the set of past years has the order type of the
non-positive integers is acceptable in this context, since that is
the main hypothesis that Craig claims ought to be rejected due to the
Tristram Shandy argument, and since in any case, I intend to show
that the 'Tristram Shandy' argument does not show that such a past is
impossible. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notetype"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[15] As usual, the scenario isn't
completely specified, so someone might argue that it's more accurate
to say it's a type or category of scenario, but calling them
'scenario' seems to be pretty standard. In any case, that they're not
fully specified shouldn't cause any confusion, as that's normally the
case. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="davey"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[16] Davey, K. and Clifton, R.
(2001) "Insufficient reason in the ‘new cosmological
argument".</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Religious
Studies 37, 485–90.</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="joshua1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">[1</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">7</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">]
Rasmussen, Joshua. “From States of Affairs to a Necessary
Being,” </FONT><I>Philosophical Studies</I> (2010). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">http://www.nd.edu/~jrasmus1/research.html</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
my assessment, Rasmussen's paper contains some of the most clever
arguments in support of the existence of a necessary being, but I
think they ultimately don't succeed. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteintrinsic"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[18] A duplicate of B is another
object D(B) with the same intrinsic properties as B. As Rasmussen
explains in his paper, characterizing intrinsic properties is
difficult. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Personally,
I would say that may be a problem, but I won't address the matter in
this essay. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="possibleworlds"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">[1</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">9</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">]
In the context of the paper under analysis, to exist necessarily is
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>by definition</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
to exist at every possible world, so I'm using possible worlds in my
reply as well. However, that is not crucial. If a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">similar
argument were made without using possible worlds, one could also
reply similarly, though part of the reply would need to be
reformulated to some extent. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notegod"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[20] I would suggest that some
theists too might find Lonely implausible, for the following reason: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If,
at W, one contingent being B exists, and no other contingent being
exists, why can't God add an angel, without destroying B? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
assumption of essentialism makes the issue obscure to me, though. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noessentialism"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[21] If I dropped the assumption
that essentialism is true, it would seem intuitively very plausible
to me that Lonely isn't possible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteblob"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[22] I would suggest that some
theists too might find Big Blob implausible. If, at W, some being B
exists and occupies all of space, why can't God remove it from some
volume V, without destroying B? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
assumption of essentialism makes the issue obscure to me, though. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteessential2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[23] Of course, I'm leaving aside
space itself, which may well be a being and in a sense necessarily
occupies all of space. But that isn't the sense relevant in this
context, and it wouldn't help the case for a maximal contingent state
of existence, at least not in this context. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notemaximal"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[2</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]
My original intuition on this matter was that for every possible
state of affairs, if unembodied </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">beings
are possible, one more probably could be added. But in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2012/05/psr-without-necessary-beings-of-any.html"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>ex-apologist's
blog</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
Joshua Rasmussen gave interesting reasons in support of the
alternative conclusion, namely that no more angels could be added. As
a result, I remain undecided – as usual, under the assumption
of essentialism; else, I would say that one more could be added. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Incidentally,
a maximal state like that might be odd for some theists as well: Is
is possible for there to be so many angels that God can't create one
more without destroying one of them first? </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="koons1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[25] Koons, Robert, "A new
look at the cosmological argument", American Philosophical
Quarterly 34: 193–211. (1997)
http://www.arn.org/authors/koons.html</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notekoons2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">[2</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">6</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">]
Koons, "Defeasible </FONT>Reasoning, Special Pleading and the
Cosmological Argument"</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">http://www.arn.org/docs/koons/rk_defeasible.htm</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteparticles"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[2</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">7</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]
Koons seems to assume at this point that a number of states of
affairs we encounter in science are </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>wholly</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
contingent, ruling out necessary basic particles, necessary space,
etc. He does make arguments against the necessity of such beings
later, though, but I do not find them persuasive, for reasons I will
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">give
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#attributes"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>later</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="joshua2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">[2</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">8</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">]
A New Argument for a Necessary Being, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>Australasian
Journal of Philosophy</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> (2011). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">http://www.nd.edu/~jrasmus1/research.html</FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notecant2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[29] When I say we can't
visualize some kind of particle (for instance), I'm not making a
modal claim of metaphysical impossibility. I'm just using the word
'can' in what is at least one of its ordinary senses, and which I
think is clear enough given context, so this shouldn't cause
confusion. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, it would be enough to say that we've never visualized and
never will visualize such-and-such objects, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notemalo2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">30</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]
Moreover, the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#Malo"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>Malo</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenarios seem intuitively conceivable as well. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Granted,
that's only a problem for theistic necessary beings, but still, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>if</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
a certain criterion as a guide to metaphysical possibility is used in
the context of an argument for theism, it seems to me that such
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">consequences may reasonably be pointed
out. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notebroad"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]
Someone may want to further distinguish between different types of
conceivability that don't require visualization. Given </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>my
take on the matter</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
I don't think that that's required, but I recognize it's another
potential approach. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notetime2"></A><A NAME="noteH0"></A><A NAME="notejoshua5"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]
I would still think that the amount and kind of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>actual
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">suffering
in the world – for instance – is enough for us to rule
out the existence of a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god
or a 2-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
but that's another matter, and I will not argue for that in this
essay. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">What
I'm getting at in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>in
this context </U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>if
</I></FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#broadconceivability"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>conceivability
without visualization</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
does not work as a good guide to possibility despite its being so
intuitive to me, I would be hesitant to accept the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#narrowcont"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>continuity
principle</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and so in particular, </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#nogod"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>I
wouldn't find an argument from suffering and/or moral evil based on
it</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
to be an improvement over an argument from actual suffering and/or
evil, as an argument against a claim that </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>a
1-god or a 2-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
exists necessarily. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notecraig1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[33] Craig, William Lane,
"Reasonable Faith, Christian Truth and Apologetics", Third
Edition. Publisher: Crossway. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this context, Craig seems to use the terms 'being' and 'thing'
interchangeably. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteterritory"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[34] Our actual mental states are
part of the territory too, though maybe 'in here' would be more
descriptive than 'out there' in this case. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
example, if Alice is thinking about the number 5, that's a being with
certain properties, in the territory. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, let's say that we come up with a hypothetical
scenario, say the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then,
in my view: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1. We can have knowledge about
the scenario in question, make true (or false) claims about what
happens in it, and so on. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, if I claim that in the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, no being is in pain, that's a false claim. On the other
hand, if I say that in the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, there are eventually more than 8397994 concrete </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">beings,
that's a true claim. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2. When we
talk about the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, we're not talking about actual mental states. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, even if all of the people who ever thought about the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario were to die, that would not change the fact that in the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, there are eventually more than 8397994 concrete beings. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3. In
general, there is no '</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario' in the territory. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, it seems to me that we have
knowledge about an abstract, hypothetical scenario, but when we talk
about things that happen, exist, etc., in that scenario, we're not
talking about the territory, but about an abstraction more or less
loosely based on it, our intuitions, experiences, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4. The </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario belongs in the category 'strictly logically consistent
scenarios', but if someone included the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario in an ontology, I would find that puzzling, as I would find
an ontological claim that the category of strictly logically
consistent scenarios exists, and so on. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
concede that this is a very complicated matter, and many other people
have very different takes on it, though, but in my assessment, to
include abstracta in an ontology is a mistake. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
does not entail that claims like '1 + 1= 2' are somehow false; that
claim is true, as is the claim that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, there are eventually more than 8397994 concrete beings, but
neither claim requires an ontological claim of existence of
abstracta, whether it's numbers or the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#BIS"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>BIS</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
scenario, in my view. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteapproach"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[35] Different arguments from
contingency use different causal or explanatory principles, so
perhaps one might want to introduce more non-theistic hypotheses,
tailored to those different principles. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
I prefer to introduce some rather general </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#H1"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>hypotheses</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
and then compare them with theistic alternatives to see how they
fare. I will introduce some more specific hypotheses when I think
that's </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">useful
as a means of handling some specific theistic arguments. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">At
any rate, the non-theistic alternatives I'm suggesting are only part
of my strategy, and I will challenge some theistic arguments on
different grounds as well. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notedesign"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[36] There
are issues such as how one goes about assessing what range of
fundamental constants counts as 'narrow', but that's beyond the scope
of this essay too. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notechristian1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[37] I'm
talking about different beings, rather than a being that is three
persons, assuming that it's coherent for a being to be three persons,
or to exist as three persons. Personally, I concede I can't make
sense of a being that is three persons. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notelectrons"></A><A NAME="noteelectrons"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[38] The assumption of
essentialism may be causing problems here, but dropping that
assumption would probably be much more of a problem for the theist,
since (for example): </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a. Essences are commonly used in
theistic arguments, including contingency arguments. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b. God is usually claimed to have
an essence, and so is each human on theism, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-left: 0.39in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c. In particular, nearly all
versions of Christianity seem to maintain that the creator is
essentially a trinity, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Since
essentialism seems to be frequently accepted, I'm granting it for the
sake of the argument – at least, in nearly all of this essay. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteintuitions"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[39] Our intuitions, even if 'a
priori', are not only the consequence of innate predispositions, but
are also informed by our experience, in my view. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
I do not think that that causes problems for my assessment of the
evidence. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any event, we may assess all the evidence together if we so choose,
and the result does not seem to be more supportive of Koons'
arguments from a necessary cause to some specific kind of being. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteelectrons2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[40] Incidentally, that the
charge would not change is not something we could tell a priori, and
for all we knew a priori, the empirical evidence might have turned
out different from what it is. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
as it turned out, the charge seems not to change. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Granted,
that a property does not change in a lot of cases does not entail
that it cannot change, but it seems to provide at least </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>some</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
empirical evidence in support of the theory that the property in
question </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">is essential, under the
assumption that essentialism is true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notemental12"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[41] Regardless of whether we can
properly assign a number to those degrees, it seems clear that those
properties can be had to different degrees. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteessential"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[42] I'm
not assuming here that essentialism is false, either. I'm just
dropping the assumption that it's true. I will leave aside the issue
of whether the case I'm making provides evidence against
essentialism. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notekomodo"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">[4</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">3</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">]
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">We may as well start with a cell at any
earlier stage. This is not crucial to my argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteimprecise"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[44] There probably is a semantic
difficulty as well: </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
words that we use to describe the world around us do not seem to be
precise enough for there to be, say, a first nanosecond at which
there is a Komodo dragon, or even a fully formed Komodo dragon (or a
dog, or a human being, or a person, etc.), regardless of ontological
matters. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
raising semantic problems would seem to be of no help for the
ontological view that a property is immeasurable, in my view, so
there is no need to go any further on that. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notenofact"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[45]
Granted, most Christians believe otherwise, but we needn't assume
that here. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
any case, we may as well start with an unfertilized ovum and make the
argument in that fashion, arguing that there probably is no 'first
instant' at which there is a person. Incidentally. fertilization is a
gradual process as well, so 'moment of conception' replies won't
block my argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="joshua3"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">[4</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">6</FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">]
Rasmussen, Joshua, "F</FONT>rom a Necessary Being to God". </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">International
Journal of Philosophy of Religion 66.1: 1-13. (2009). </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notelfw2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[47] It's not clear to me whether
the paper distinguishes here between causal determinism and
determinism in general. It's not important to my reply, though, since
the path to agency in any case assumes that some kind of libertarian
account of freedom is the correct account of freedom, which is all I
need in this part of my reply. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notefw"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">[4</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">8</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">]
My position is that libertarians have a mistaken account of freedom,
and that the semantics of terms like 'freedom', 'free will', etc., do
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>not </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">rule
out determinism, causal or otherwise. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#222222">But
it's beyond the scope of this essay to make that case, and I'm not
going to assume that they're mistaken. Instead, I will say that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I>if</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222">
a theist claimed that a correct account of freedom is libertarian
freedom, the burden would seem to be on her. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteproba2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[49] Probabilistic assessments of
this matter are beyond the scope of this essay, so I'll just state
that my position is that theistic hypotheses are less probable than
most non-theistic ones, and even than some rather ad-hoc ones, in
terms of prior probabilities if we can properly assign priors –
given conditions like omniscience -, and especially final
probabilities – given conditions like moral perfection
omnipotence and omniscience, or at least moral perfection plus great
knowledge and power. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notechristian"></A><A NAME="notechristian "></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">[</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">50</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">]
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080">The premise looks incompatible to me
with having the property of being three persons, if that's a property
and makes sense. But then again, I can't make of a being that is
three persons, anyway. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notetime"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[51] <FONT COLOR="#000000">If
metaphysical time is not physical time, then my scenario is about
metaphysical time. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Incidentally,
a claim that time is actually not relative and only physical time is,
looks to me like a claim that some of our observations are illusory.
They might be so, but the claim would seem to need defending, in my
assessment. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notemeta"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">5</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]
The source of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">some
o</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">f
the</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
main</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
ideas on which I base some my arguments in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#goodness"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>this
subsection</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
is an anonymous poster whose user name at www.freeratio.org is
'Bomb#20', so he deserves the credit for them. To be clear, though, I
don't claim that the points I'm making reflect his views, since I'm
also using a number of my own ideas – and I don't know whether
he agrees with those -, and also I might have </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">misunderstood
some of his views, so any errors here are on my part. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
a related note, I replied to a number of metaethical arguments for
theism in </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/metaethical-arguments-provide-no.html"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>another
essay</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
in which I also used some of his ideas. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notealiens4"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[53] As a justification for
rejecting arguments for infinite moral goodness in this context, it
is enough that some of us are justified in not concluding that the
scenarios I will present are impossible, or probably impossible. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
in my assessment, a stronger claim holds, namely that a person who is
moderately familiar with biological evolution and the scale of the
universe shouldn't conclude that they're impossible, or probably so.
Granted, many theists may well dispute that, and it's a matter of
assessing the evidence and discussing the matter, but that would be
beyond the scope of this essay, so I'm just introducing the issue. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteinverted"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[54] I'm assuming that different
human individuals have similar perceptions and mental experiences,
and in particular, that there is no inverted color spectrum. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
assumption seems quite probable to me, but in any case, that is not
crucial to my argument, and the scenarios may be suitable modified if
needed. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notespectra"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[55] As we know from animals on
Earth, a star with a spectrum different from that of the Sun is not
required for different lifeforms to have different visible spectra,
as a result of the evolutionary process. The condition that their
star's spectrum is different is merely to stress the differences
between the respective ancestral environments. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notesmell"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[56] There probably is more
variation among humans in the case of smell than in the case of
color, but I'm talking approximately and on average. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
a difference in the way that different lifeforms perceive smell does
not require different prevalence of organic molecules in their
environment, etc., so that condition is merely for the purpose of
stressing the differences between the different ancestral
environments. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noterose"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[57] In other words, the mental
image they would get if they looked at a rose would not be the image
we humans get when we look at it. They would see different degrees of
detail, different coloration, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteneander"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[58] On that note, it's quite
plausible that the sense of vision of Neanderthals was very similar
to that of modern humans, but their sense of, say, Neanderthal-beauty
was at least in some respects significantly different from our sense
of beauty. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, the mental image that they got when looking at another
Neanderthal was plausibly not very different from the mental image
that we would get. But plausibly, many faces that were
Neanderthal-beautiful were not beautiful, and vice versa. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">So,
there are such differences, and that's an example from a species that
is </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>very </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">closely
related to our </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">species, or a subspecies
of our same species, depending on how one classifies them. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
sense of S-beauty of a very different species S may well be far more
distant from our sense of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">beauty
than the Neanderthal sense of Neanderthal-beauty was, so we may
reasonably stipulate that the </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians'</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
sense of z-beauty is very different from our sense of beauty. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
there may well be considerably greater differences between the senses
of beauty of different humans, even under normal conditions –
much greater than the differences in normal color vision, for
example. If so, someone might argue that that may well have
significant consequences for a philosophical analysis of beauty.
However, there is no need to address the matter here. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Alternatively,
or additionally, someone might argue that things may be beautiful to
some agent or to some other agent, but that there is nothing like
'Neanderthal-beautiful', except in the sense of something that would
be beautiful to all Neanderthals, or to all normal Neanderthals,
etc., and similarly in the case of humans, things may be beautiful to
some human or another human, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
there is no need to address those matters here, either. I used beauty
as an example because I think it might clarify some of the
difficulties for theistic arguments for moral goodness I'm getting
at. However, if it causes any difficulties, we might as well remove
any reference to beauty in the scenario </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">about
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
and the argumentation based on it, and the problem of potential alien
minds in the moral case is not affected. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notenoguided"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[59] While I think that there are
sufficient reasons for believing that no entity is guiding the
process, regardless of whether there is some deistic creator that
started it, I don't need to claim that in this context. </FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notepoe"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">60</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]
Personally, while I don't think theism is compatible with the
existence of </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#zurkovians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>zurkovians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
</FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#kitonians"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>kitonians</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
etc., for that matter, I don't think it's compatible with the
existence of humans, either, since in my assessment a </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god
or a 2-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">
would never create anything remotely resembling our universe, given
their power, knowledge and moral goodness. But I'm not making an
argument to that conclusion here, or assuming that that is the case.
My arguments in this context are independent of that assessment. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteevil"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">6</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">]
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Personally,
I would say that we ought to conclude that there is no </FONT></FONT><A CLASS="western" HREF="#typesofgods"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN LANG="zxx"><U>1-god
or 2-god</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">,
given the suffering in our world (for instance). But that would
require a very different argument, and it</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">'s
beyond </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
scope of this essay. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="line-height: 150%"><BR><BR>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-35759813584976383002012-06-11T22:57:00.000-07:002013-01-20T18:03:12.919-08:00A brief reply to Koons' Kalam Argument: the Grim Reapers<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="LibreOffice 3.6 (Windows)">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="0;0">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20130120;23024817">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" DIR="LTR">
<DIV TYPE=HEADER>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR><BR><BR><BR>
</P>
</DIV>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">Note: this post is out of date. An
updated reply to Koons' Grim Reapers argument can be found <A HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-reply-to-kalam-cosmological-argument.html#placers">here</A>.
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B><FONT SIZE=4>A
brief reply to Koons' Kalam Argument: the Grim Reapers</FONT> </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>1.
Introduction</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
question of whether there are infinitely many past times is central
to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
a 2011 paper<A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=207940809631227645#paper">[1]</A>,
<A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=207940809631227645#paper2">[2]</A>,
Robert Koons uses a 'Grim Reapers' argument to support the hypothesis
that the past is finite, and moreover, the hypothesis that time is
not dense, in the sense that a finite temporal interval can only be
divided in finitely many subintervals. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In this
article, I will argue that Koons' Grim Reapers argument fails to
support either hypothesis. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>2.
Intrinsicality</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons'
gives the following two definitions of 'intrinsic' in two versions of
his paper; one is in terms of propositions, the other one in terms of
properties. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Koons:
</B></FONT></FONT><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=207940809631227645#paper"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[1]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
property P is </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">intrinsic
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
a thing x within region R in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>world
W if and only if x is P throughout R in W, and every counterpart of x
in any region R</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Liberation Sans"><SPAN LANG="ja-JP"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>メ
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>of
world W</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Liberation Sans"><SPAN LANG="ja-JP"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>メ
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>whose
contents exactly duplicate the contents of R in W also has P
throughout R</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Liberation Sans"><SPAN LANG="ja-JP"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>メ</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Koons:</B></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=207940809631227645#paper2"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[2]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
proposition P is intrinsic to </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE=3>spatiotemporal
region R if P consists of a finite conjunction of atomic propositions
ascribing simple powers and dispositions to things located entirely
within R at times wholly within R.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In any
case, applicability of the principles of binary patchwork and
infinitary patchwork require that the powers and dispositions of each
of the reapers be intrinsic. I will use the first definition above,
but the second wouldn't affect the objections I will raise. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>3.
Binary Patchwork and Infinitary Patchwork </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Koons'
proposes two principles, binary patchwork and infinitary patchwork. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Koons:
</B></FONT></FONT><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=207940809631227645#paper"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[1]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Binary
Patchwork. </B></FONT><FONT SIZE=3>If possible world W</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>1</FONT></SUB>
<FONT SIZE=3>includes spatiotemporal region R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>1</FONT></SUB><FONT SIZE=3>,
possible world W</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>2</FONT></SUB> <FONT SIZE=3>includes
region R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>2</FONT></SUB><FONT SIZE=3>, and
possible world W</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>3</FONT></SUB> <FONT SIZE=3>includes
R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>3</FONT></SUB><FONT SIZE=3>, and R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>1
</FONT></SUB><FONT SIZE=3>and R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>2</FONT></SUB>
<FONT SIZE=3>can be mapped onto non-overlapping parts of R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>3</FONT></SUB>
<FONT SIZE=3>(R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>3.1</FONT></SUB> <FONT SIZE=3>and
R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>3.2</FONT></SUB><FONT SIZE=3>) while
preserving all the metrical and topological properties of the three
regions, then there is a world W</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>4</FONT></SUB>
<FONT SIZE=3>and region R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>4</FONT></SUB> <FONT SIZE=3>such
that R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>3</FONT></SUB> <FONT SIZE=3>and R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>4
</FONT></SUB><FONT SIZE=3>are isomorphic, the part of W</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>4</FONT></SUB>
<FONT SIZE=3>within R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>4.1 </FONT></SUB><FONT SIZE=3>exactly
duplicates the part of W</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>1 </FONT></SUB><FONT SIZE=3>within
R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>1</FONT></SUB><FONT SIZE=3>, and the part
of W</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>4</FONT></SUB> <FONT SIZE=3>within R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>4.2</FONT></SUB>
<FONT SIZE=3>exactly duplicates the part of W</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>2</FONT></SUB>
<FONT SIZE=3>within R</FONT><SUB><FONT SIZE=3>2. </FONT></SUB></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Koons:
</B></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=207940809631227645#paper"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[1]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>P2.
Infinitary Patchwork (PInf). </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
S is a countable series of possible worlds, and T a </SPAN></FONT>series
of regions within those worlds such that T<SUB>i</SUB> is part of W<SUB>i
</SUB>(for each i), and f is a function from T into the set of
spatiotemporal regions of world W such that no two values of f
overlap, then there is a possible world W' and an isomorphism f' from
the spatiotemporal regions of W to the spatiotemporal regions of W'
such that the part of each world W<SUB>i </SUB>within the region T<SUB>i
</SUB>exactly resembles the part of W' within region f'(f(T<SUB>i</SUB>)).
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>4.
Grim Reapers </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Grim
Reaper#n (henceforth, GR<SUB>n</SUB>) is an entity that checks
whether there is a Fred particle at some designated position at a
distance d/2<SUP>j</SUP> from a plane P, for some j >n. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
there is one such particle, then GR<SUB>n</SUB> does nothing. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
there is no such particle, GR<SUB>n</SUB> places one particle at a
specific location, at a distance d/2<SUP>n </SUP>from plane P. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
GR<SUB>n</SUB> exists at a region R<SUB>n</SUB> in W<SUB>n</SUB>, and
there is a world W and a function from the series {R<SUB>n</SUB>}
into the spatiotemporal regions of W such that no two values of f
overlap. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Each
region Rn has a temporally closed boundary in the direction of the
future, and an open one in the direction of the past; also, the
regions are temporally adjoining, and there is an infinite series
towards the past: for instance, if R</FONT></FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>n</FONT></FONT></SUB>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>is extended over an
interval (t</FONT></FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>n+1</FONT></FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>,t</FONT></FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>n</FONT></FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>],
R</FONT></FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>n+1</FONT></FONT></SUB>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>is extended in
(t</FONT></FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>n+2</FONT></FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>,t</FONT></FONT><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>n+1</FONT></FONT></SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>].
<A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=207940809631227645#regions1">[3]</A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>According
to Koons', patching those worlds would result in a contradiction. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
the following scenario is apparently not contradictory. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
say that, at world W', the following obtains: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
every n natural number n, in the interval (t<SUB>n+1</SUB>,t<SUB>n</SUB>],
there is a reaper GR<SUB>n</SUB> and a Fred particle F<SUB>n</SUB> at
the specified location, at a distance d/2<SUP>n </SUP>of plane P. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>GR<SUB>n</SUB>
and F<SUB>n</SUB> do not exist at any other time in W'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There
appears to be no contradiction in the previous scenario, so it seems
that patching them is possible after all. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>5.
Grim Signalers </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Koons'
considers an objection <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=207940809631227645#objection1">such
as the one raised above</A>, and says that what matters is that a
signal of some kind has to persist, and so the Grim Reapers (or Grim
Signalers) would have an intrinsic power to send a signal to a
following reaper, and to receive a signal from a previous ones. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
sending and receiving those signals would be intrinsic powers of the
reapers or signalers, with the corresponding intrinsic dispositions. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
he avoids the objection that powers and dispositions may fail by
saying that whether powers and dispositions are used successfully is
intrinsic to the situation in which they're used. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
adjoining non-overlapping intervals aren't good enough. The power to
send the signal to the next signaler is akin to the power to make the
particle last </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><I>into
the next interval</I></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN LANG="en-US"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
That seems to defeat the argument, because the intervals would have
to overlap. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>6.
Conclusion </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Given
the previous considerations, we can tell that the fact that Koons
obtains a contradiction from the scenario he constructs is not
related to the issue of whether time is dense or whether there are
infinitely many past non-overlapping temporal intervals, and
generally not related to infinities, since a similar contradiction
can be obtained in the binary case. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
in particular, Koons' 'Grim Reapers' (or Grim Signalers) scenarios
fail to establish any conclusions about whether time is dense, or
whether there are infinitely many past non-overlapping temporal
intervals. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Notes
and references </B></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[1]
Source:
http://www.robkoons.net/media/83c9b25c56d629ffffff810fffffd524.pdf</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[2]
Source:
http://www.lastseminary.com/cosmological-argument/The%20Grim%20Reaper%27s%20Revenge%20-%20A%20New%20Kalam%20Argument.pdf</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[3]
That the regions have a temporally closed boundary towards the future
and an open one towards the past, plus the conditions that the
regions are adjoining are mentioned by Koons' in his reply to the
'vanishing particle' objection. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">--></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-25617401476725758862012-02-19T13:03:00.030-08:002013-01-06T08:40:25.633-08:00A Brief Reply To The Kalam Cosmological Argument<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="LibreOffice 3.5 (Windows)">
<META NAME="AUTHOR" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20120217;10225600">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20120803;21442664">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" DIR="LTR">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="LibreOffice 3.6 (Windows)">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20130106;13324393">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20130106;13344764">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" DIR="LTR">
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT SIZE=4 STYLE="font-size: 16pt"><B>This post is out of date. An improved reply to the KCA can be found
<A HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-reply-to-kalam-cosmological-argument.html">here</A>.
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT SIZE=5><B>Against
The Kalam Cosmological Argument – a brief reply</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="introduction"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>1.
Introduction</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">William
Lane Craig defends Kalam Cosmological Argument, and further argues
that the cause of the universe is a personal being who is timeless
sans the universe, but temporal with it. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notebook"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[1]</FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
will show that Craig's God would actually be an uncaused entity with
a temporal beginning at the first temporal state of the world. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
this applies to any version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that
is defended based on claims of a tensed theory of time, the
impossibility of an actual infinity, and the claim that infinitely
many <I>actual </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">past
changes in the world would constitute an actual infinity. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="terminology"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>2.
Terminology </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>By
'KCA' I mean the Kalam Cosmological Argument. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>By
'Craig's position' I mean Craig's claims and arguments in the context
of his case for theism based on the KCA. That includes his reasoning
in support of the premises of the KCA, and also in support of the
claim that the cause of the universe is God. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>By
'event' I mean any actual change, and I use 'change' in the ordinary
sense of the word. By saying that the change is actual, I mean that
my concern is ontological. Different points in a mathematical model
do not count as events. Only real changes in the world do. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
will use bold italic uppercase letters (e.g., <I><B>J</B></I><I>, </I><I><B>K</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
etc.) to denote finite temporal intervals, and bold italic lowercase
letters (e.g., </SPAN></SPAN><I><B>t</B></I><I>, </I><I><B>u</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
etc.) to denote temporal instants. I will also number them (e.g.,
</SPAN></SPAN><I><B>t(1), t(2)</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
etc.)</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>My
concern here is ontology, so when I talk of temporal intervals or
instants, I'm talking about actual features of the world, not about
mathematical models. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
when I speak of temporal intervals, I'm assuming those intervals are
of finite duration, though not necessarily of equal duration. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>By
'◄' I mean 'earlier than', in the usual, temporal sense of the
word. For instance, <I><B>J</B></I>◄<I><B>K</B></I> means that
<I><B>J </B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN><I><B>K </B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">do
not overlap, and </SPAN></SPAN><I><B>J</B></I> is earlier than <I><B>K</B></I>.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>When
I prove lemmas, unless otherwise stated, I'm assuming any parts of
Craig's position, as required. In other words, those lemmas are
statements that follow from Craig's position. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="changesandinfinity"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>3.
Changes and infinity </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Lemma
1:</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>nfinitely
many events in the world are impossible, regardless of whether their
duration is equal. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Proof:
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>This
can easily be seen in Craig's defense of the KCA. For example: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#notepage116"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[2]</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
second premise states that <I>an infinite temporal regress of events
is an actual infinite.</I> </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
point seems obvious enough, for if there has been a sequence composed
of an infinite number of events stretching back into the past, then
the set of all events in the series would be an actually infinite
set.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Craig
was talking about events of equal lengths, but clearly, that they
constitute an actual infinite does not depend on their length. As
long as they are actual changes, infinitely many events meet Craig's
requirement for an actual infinity. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage116"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[2]</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So
when we say that the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">number
of past events is infinite, we mean that prior to today, ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><B>0</B></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
events have elapsed.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">Once
again, that does not depend on the length of the events. And Craig
goes on to claim that ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><B>0</B></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
events are impossible: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage116"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[2]</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Because
the series of past events is an actual infinite, all the absurdities
attending the</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>existence
of an actual infinite apply to it. For example, if the series of past
events is actually</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>infinite,
then the number of events that have occurred up to the present is no
greater than</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">the
number that have occurred </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>at
any point in the past. </I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>And
that would be the case regardless of whether the events are of equal
duration. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So,
while there might be infinitely many </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>potential</I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
changes, and so the future need not be closed, Craig's position
entails that there are only finitely many past, actual changes in the
world – in other words, only finitely many past events.
Moreover, at any time in the future, only finitely changes will have
occurred. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Similarly,
this entails that any closed temporal interval contains only finitely
many events. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="discretetime"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>4.
Discrete time </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
this section, I will establish some results on the nature of time
that follow from Craig's position.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>Definition</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">:
A temporal interval </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>J</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
has property Q if and only if </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">there
is some non-negative integer N(</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><B>J)</B></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
such that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><B>J</B></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">cannot
be divided into more than N(</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><B>J)</B></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">smaller
temporal subintervals. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Lemma
2:</B></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
there are temporal intervals, then every temporal interval </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><B>J</B></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
property Q. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Proof: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let's
assume a temporal interval </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>J</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
not have property Q. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">By
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#lemma1"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">lemma
1</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there are only finitely many events in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J.
</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
let </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><B>m </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
the number of events in </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>J</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Since
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
not have property Q, there is some natural number </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>r
> m+4 </B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(for
instance), such that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J
</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">can
be divided into </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>r
</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">smaller
temporal subintervals, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J(1)</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">◄</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J(2)</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">◄
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J(3)...</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">◄</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J(r)</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let
us consider the following events, for k in {2,...,r-1} </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>E(k):
God changes from not knowing that <FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>J(k)</I></FONT>
is present to knowing that <FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>J(k)</I></FONT>
is present. </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Note
that those are actual changes in the world, in particular, in the
mind of God. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
those are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>r-2
> m+2 </B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">distinct
events, contradicting the assumption. That proves <A HREF="#lemma2">lemma
2.</A> </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="lemma3"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Lemma
3: </B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If there are temporal
intervals, every such interval </SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>J
</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">can
be divided into finitely many non-dividable temporal intervals. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Given
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J
</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">can't
be divided into more than N(</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J)</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">subintervals,
by </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><A HREF="#lemma2">lemma
2.</A> </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000">So,
let's divide </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>J </B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">into
the maximum number of subintervals into which it can be divided.
Then, every such subinterval is non-dividable, and lemma 3 is proved.
</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="lemma4"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><B>Lemma
4: </B></FONT>If there are temporal instants, then for every two
instants <I><B>t</B></I> and <I><B>u</B></I> such that <I><B>t </B></I><FONT COLOR="#000000">◄</FONT>
<I><B>u</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">, there is some
</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">non-negative
integer N(</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>t,u</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">),
such that there are not more than N(</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>t,u</B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)
instants between </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>t </B></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><B>u. </B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Proof:
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Essentially
the same as </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#lemma2"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">lemma
2</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
with only the obvious changes. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="lemma5"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>Lemma
5</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Either there are non-dividable temporal intervals, or there are
instants. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Proof:
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
seems clear on a tensed theory of time. Temporal becoming is a real
feature of the world, so if there are no intervals, it seems that
there are instants. If there are intervals, there are non-dividable
intervals, by </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#lemma3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>lemma
3.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="absolutebeginning"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>5.
An absolute temporal beginning </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In this section,
will prove that Craig's arguments entail that there is a first actual
temporal state of the world, a second one, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma6"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Lemma 6: </B>If
there are non-dividable temporal intervals, there is an absolutely
first non-dividable interval <I><B>K(0). </B></I>There is no temporal
interval that begins before <I><B>K(0) </B></I>begins. Moreover,
there is a second such interval <I><B>K(1)</B></I><B>, </B>a third
one, and generally the past is composed of finitely many such
intervals. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Proof: Let's assume
there is a sequence of non-dividable intervals <I><B>K(n+1) </B></I><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">◄
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><B>K(n)</B></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>,
</I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">for
all natural numbers n. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
consider the events</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><FONT COLOR="#000000">F(n):
God changes from not knowing that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>K(n)</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is present to knowing that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>K(n)</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
is present. </FONT></B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
there are infinitely many past events, contradicting <A HREF="#lemma1">lemma
1</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
proves that if there are non-dividable temporal intervals, there is a
first one <FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K(0). </B></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
there is some other interval </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J
</B></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
that begins earlier than </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J
</B></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">than
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K(0)</B></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then by <A HREF="#lemma3">lemma 3</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
can divide </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>J</B></I></FONT></FONT>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
non-dividable intervals, and one of them would be earlier than </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K(0)</B></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
a contradiction. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">By
a similar procedure, we can construct a second one, and so on, and
the total number up to the present time must be finite by <A HREF="#lemma1">lemma
1</A>, since otherwise we could construct an infinite sequence of
events. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
proves <A HREF="#lemma6">lemma 6.</A> </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma7"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Lemma 7: </B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
there</SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are temporal instants,
there is a first temporal instant </SPAN><I><B>t(0)</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Similarly, there is a second instant </SPAN><I><B>t(1)</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
a third one </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><I><B>t(2)</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and generally the past is composed of a finite number of such
instants. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Proof: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Like
the proof of <A HREF="#lemma6">lemma 6</A>, removing superfluous
parts and making some obvious changes. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma8"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Lemma 8</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Either there is a first temporal instant </SPAN><I><B>t(0),</B></I>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
a first </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">non-dividable
interval </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>K(0). </B></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Proof: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
follows from lemmas <A HREF="#lemma5">5</A>, <A HREF="#lemma6">6</A>,
and <A HREF="#lemma7">7</A>. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="lemma9"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Lemma 9</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
There is an absolute first, non-dividable temporal state of the world
T(0). Moreover, there is a second such state T(1), a third T(2), and
generally the past if composed of finitely many such states. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
there are instants, then let T(n) be the state of the world at </SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#lemma7"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>t(n)</B></I></FONT></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
all past instants. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
for k>n, at T(k) God knows that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#lemma7"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>t(n)</B></I></FONT></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
past and that there are more than n past instants, whereas at T(n),
it is not the case that God knows that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#lemma7"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>t(n)</B></I></FONT></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
past and it is not the case that God knows that there are more than n
past instants. So, if k>n, then the states T(k) and T(n) are
different from each other. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, since each T(n) corresponds
to a single instant, it cannot be divided. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
there are non-dividable intervals, then let T(n) be the state of the
world at </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#lemma6"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><U><B>K(n)</B></U></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
for all past non-dividable intervals. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
for k>n, at T(k) God knows that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#lemma6"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><U><B>K(n)</B></U></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
past and that there are more than n past non-dividable intervals,
whereas at T(n), it is not the case that God knows that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#lemma6"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><U><B>K(n)</B></U></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
past and it is not the case that God knows that there are more than n
past non-dividable intervals. So, if k>n, then the states T(k) and
T(n) are different from each other. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,
since each T(n) corresponds to a single non-dividable interval, it
cannot be divided. <A HREF="#notedifference">[4]</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="noontologicaldifference"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>6.
No ontological difference </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's consider the
following two scenarios, ordering the states in terms of causal
priority. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario 1:</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First
state of the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Timeless
state S. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
only object is God, which exists timelessly at S and without a cause.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second
state of the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First
temporal state T(0). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>God
exists temporally, and the universe exists. The change from the first
to the second state of the world, including the creation of the
universe and God's own change from timeless to temporal, takes place
because God intends to bring it about. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Third
state of the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second
temporal state T(1). The objects are God, the universe, and perhaps
some other objects. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario 2:</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First
temporal state T(0). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
only object is God, who exists temporally at T(0) and without a
cause. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second
temporal state T(1). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>God
exists temporally, and the universe exists. The change from the first
to the second state of the world, including the creation of the
universe and God's own change from timeless to temporal, takes place
because God intends to bring it about. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Third
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Third
temporal state T(2). The objects are God, the universe, and the same
other objects as in the <A HREF="#scenario1">previous scenario</A>
(if any), with the same causes. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
key point here is that the so-called 'timeless' state in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario
1</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>exactly</B></I></FONT></FONT>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">like
the first temporal state T(0) in <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A>.
In other words, there is no </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>ontological</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">difference
whatsoever, even if different </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>words</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
used: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In both cases, what
we have is a first state of the world changing into the next, and so
on. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In both cases, God
exists without a cause of his existence at the first state of the
world. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In both cases, the
universe exists at the second state of the world, and exists because
God intends to bring it about, and so on. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Also,
saying that the difference between the two scenarios is that one
state – namely, S in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A> –
is timeless and the other – namely, T(0) in <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario
2</A> – is temporal, or that in one of them there at least one
tensed fact, whereas in the other one there are no tensed facts,
would fail to address the point, since that would simply amount to
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>denying</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
there is no ontological difference, without explaining </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>how</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>why</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
is so, which is a burden on the theist defender of the KCA, since we
can conclude that the states are ontologically identical, just by
looking at the description</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
those states, and regardless of the use of the word 'timeless' in the
first one. Still, let's go further and show that Craig's implication
that a timeless state would be changeless also fails to make a
difference. In fact, 'both' states are </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>not
</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">changeless.
:just as God changes from his first to his second state in <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario
2</A>, he does so in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A>. So, it
remains the case that there is an entity – i.e., God –
that exists at a first state of the world and without a cause of his
existence, changes to a second state, then to a third one, etc.,
regardless of whether the first state of that entity is </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>called
</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'timeless'.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alternatively,
someone might raise the following objection: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>An
ontological difference is that temporal states of God </I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>must</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>change
as time goes by, whereas the timeless state S in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario
1</A> could have remained unchanged. In other words, if God exists at
temporal state T(0) – as in <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A>
</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">–</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>necessarily</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there will be a second temporal state T(1), and </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>necessarily</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
God will change from T(0) to T(1), since his knowledge of tensed
truths will change. On the other hand, if God exists in a timeless
state S (as in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A>), then it is
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>possible</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
given that first timeless state of God, that God never changes</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
problem with that objection is that it follows from any creation
hypotheses posited by theist defenders of the KCA </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222">–
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">i.e.,
given what God's first state actually would be, based on the
implications of their claims –</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
that it is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">impossible</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
God never changes given that first state, which means both <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario
1</A> and <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A> are indistinguishable
in that regard as well, as the following reasoning shows: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario3"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario
3:</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First
state of the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Timeless
state S. The only object is God, which exists timelessly at S and
without a cause. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second
state of the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Temporal
state T(0). God exists temporally, and the universe exists. The
change from the first to the second state of the world, including the
creation of the universe and God's own change from timeless to
temporal, takes place because of God intends to bring it about. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario4"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario
4: </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First
state of the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Timeless
state S. The only object is God, which exists timelessly at S and
without a cause. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There
are no temporal states of the world. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
<A HREF="#scenario3">scenario 3</A>, if God does not intend </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>at
S</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
change, then at T(0) God </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just
found himself altered</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
In other words, if God's intent to change does not exist at </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>at
S</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then the change is not something brought because God intends to bring
it about, but something that happened </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God,
beyond his intent. That is so because the change under consideration
is a change </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
God's state, and from his first state at S. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, it's a change </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
S to T(0). </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
said change cannot have been caused by God's intent only at T(0),
given that S is causally prior to T(0). </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
if God does not intend </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>at
S</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
change from his first state to his second state, then God </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">found
himself changed </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
T(0); the change is something that happened </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God,
not something that God brought about. But that contradicts the
hypothesis that the change in <A HREF="#scenario3">scenario 3</A>
happens because God intends to bring it about. Thus, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><A HREF="#scenario3">at
S</A>, </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God
intends to bring about the change. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Hence,
given God's state <A HREF="#scenario3">at S</A> in <A HREF="#scenario3">scenario
3</A>, it is impossible that God does not change, since God can't
fail to bring about what he intends to bring about. Moreover, just as
in <A HREF="#scenario3">scenario 3</A> it is impossible that God does
not change, the same is true and for the same reasons in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario
1</A>. Also, the states denoted by 'S' in <A HREF="#scenario3">scenario
3</A> and <A HREF="#scenario4">scenario 4</A> respectively, are not
the same. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might suggest that, in <A HREF="#scenario3">scenario 3</A>, God
exercised his libertarian free will at T(0) to bring about the
change, but </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
S</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
he does not intend to change. However, leaving aside issues about the
coherence of libertarian free will, that is impossible for the
reasons I explained above: since the change under consideration is
God's change </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
S to T(0)</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it cannot have been decided only at T(0). At T(0), the change already
obtains. Also, the state S is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">causally
prior</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
T(0), so a change </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
God's condition at S</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cannot
have been decided only at T(0). Thus, as concluded above, <A HREF="#scenario3">at
S</A> God intends to change. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
aside, someone might concede that there is no ontological difference
between <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1 </A>and <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario
2</A>, but claim that in that scenario God exists timelessly at his
first state. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">At
this point, there appears to be no good reason to think that
'timeless' would denote </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">anything</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
all in this context, but in any event, in that case we might simply
posit, as an alternative, that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
universe</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#noteuniverse"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[5]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">might
as well exist without a cause if its existence at a first state of
the world, then change to its second state, and so on. If the first
state of God is somehow is properly called 'timeless' in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario
1</A>, then the same is true of the first state of the universe in
the following scenario: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario5"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario 5:</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
universe exists without a cause of its existence. Nothing else exists
– there may or may not be some things <I>in </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
universe, but nothing beyond the universe. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The universe has
changed and exists in its second state. Nothing else exists. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Just
as God exists without a cause in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario1</A>,
<A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A>, and <A HREF="#scenario3">scenario
3</A>, the universe exists without a cause in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario
5</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Just
as God changes from the first to the second state of the world in
<A HREF="#scenario1">scenario1</A>, <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A>,
and <A HREF="#scenario3">scenario 3</A>, the universe so changes in
<A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>. Then, God in those scenarios
continues to change from one state of the world to the next, and the
same is true of the universe in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Thus,
there is no ontological difference between <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario1</A>
and <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A>, and no ontological
difference that would justify denying that the first state of God is
temporal in either scenario, but wouldn't justify denying that the
first state of the universe is temporal in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario
5</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Someone
might bring up 'quiescence', as an attempt to show that there is a
difference between <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario1</A> and <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario
2</A>, and/or that there is a difference that would justify denying
that God is temporal at his first state in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario
1</A>, but would not justify denying that the universe is temporal at
its first state in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>. On that note,
and in an attempt to distinguish between the universe and God, Craig
makes the following claim: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#event1"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[3]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
not, then since the universe cannot </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ever
have existed in an absolutely quiescent state, the universe must have
had a beginning. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, a
'quiescent' objection fails as well, for the following reasons: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">First,
there is no sense in which the first so-called 'timeless' state S in
<A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
quiescent, but the first temporal state T(0) in <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario
2</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
not. Indeed, in both cases, what we have is one first state of
affairs that </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>changes</I></FONT></FONT>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">into
another, second state of affairs. In both cases, God exists at the
first state of the world, and without a cause of his existence. In
both cases, also, God changes from his first state at the first state
of the world, to the second, and so on. God never remains unchanged
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>for
a while</I></FONT></FONT> <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>in
the <A HREF="#scenario1">first scenario</A></FONT></FONT> <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>but
not the <A HREF="#scenario2">second</A></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">-
that would require time -, or differs in any way between the
scenarios, by the description of them. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Second
– and now addressing Craig's contention -, the same can be said
about the universe in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>: in that
scenario, the universe exists at the first state of the world, and
without a cause of its existence. Also, the universe changes from its
first state at the first state of the world to its second state at
the second state of the world, there is no previous change, and no
period during which the universe remains unchanged. But that is
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>exactly</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">what
happens in the case of God in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Moreover,
if, say, a particle exists in the universe at the first state in
<A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>, then any change in such particle
from the first to the second state of the world is still a change
from the first to the second state of the universe. There is no
previous change, or period during which the particle or the universe
remains unchanged, but that is </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>exactly</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">what
happens in the case of God in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Thus,
there is no sense in which God could properly be described as
'quiescent' at his first state in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A>,
but the universe couldn't properly be described as 'quiescent' at its
first state in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Someone
might say that in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario1</A> and <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario
2</A>, the change from the first to the second state of the world,
including the creation of the universe and God's own change from
timeless to temporal, takes place because God intends to bring it
about, whereas in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>, the cause of
the change is not specified. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
seems completely unrelated to the issue of whether God or the
universe are 'timeless', changeless, quiescent, etc., but in any
case, we may as well further specify the scenario and add that, in
<A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>, the change from the first to the
second state of the universe is brought about by the universe's
conditions at its first state (including, of course, any particle
interactions if there are any, etc.), regardless of whether we put
that in terms of substances and causal powers, or in terms of
substances and laws, etc. Thus, the universe, which has certain
conditions in its first state, brings about the change to its second
state, just as God and his intent at the first state brings about the
change in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario1</A> and <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario
2</A> (and, for that matter, <A HREF="#scenario3">scenario 3</A>). </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>This further
specification of scenario 5 is not required, though: we might as well
leave it unspecified, or alternatively even make the change
indeterministic in scenario 5, so that given the first state of the
universe, there is more than one possible second state, and only one
actually obtains, introducing a certain degree of randomness. That
would not appear to make any difference whatsoever in terms of
changelessness, quiescence, or anything that might be called
'timelessness'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">All
that aside, a theist defender of the KCA might suggest that, perhaps,
the universe did not exist at the second state of the world, but only
at some later state. However, that clearly wouldn't make a
difference, either. We may simply posit scenarios like, say, scenario
<A HREF="#scenario1">1</A>, <A HREF="#scenario2">2</A>, and <A HREF="#scenario3">3</A>,
but without introducing the universe at the second state of the
world, and keep <A HREF="#scenario4">scenario 4</A> and <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario
5</A> unchanged. The same reasoning as above yields the same results,
defeating the attempt to make a distinction. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
to summarize, if God does not begin to exist in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario
1</A> because somehow he's 'timeless', 'changeless' and/or
'quiescent', then the universe does not begin to exist in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario
5</A> for the same reasons, and the KCA fails, since the proponent of
the KCA does not have any argument to rule out something like
<A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If,
on the other hand, God begins to exist in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario
1</A>, then the KCA fails for that reason. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Conclusion
</B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Craig
claims that God is timeless sans creation but temporal with it. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
the 'timeless' claim is a confusion; Craig's claim about God's
timelessness at his first state is false if meaningful at all, and
even assuming meaningfulness, he fails to give any way to distinguish
between God's first state and the universe's first state, when it
comes to whether the state in question is timeless. In particular, in
terms of alleged 'quiescence' or 'changelessness', no difference
exists. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
same applies to other present-day versions of the KCA, which share
the same relevant features. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[1]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notepage1161"></A><A NAME="notebook"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[2]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notepage116"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; pages 115,
116. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[3]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="event1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<BR>Page 106. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notedifference"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[4]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>At
this point, one might wonder whether there is an ontological
distinction between instants and non-dividable intervals, or it's
just a matter of notation. But there is no need to address the matter
here. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[5]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteuniverse"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
wrote a more detailed comparison of <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>
and a scenario in which God allegedly exists timelessly sans creation
but temporally with it, in <A HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/against-kalam-cosmological-argument-new.html#noontologicaldifference2">subsection
7.3</A> of <A HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/against-kalam-cosmological-argument-new.html">this
essay (some other sections of that post are outdated, though)</A>. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-37668712803186110092012-02-15T12:57:00.093-08:002013-01-06T08:39:53.154-08:00Against the Kalam Cosmological Argument - a new full reply<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="LibreOffice 3.5 (Windows)">
<META NAME="AUTHOR" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20120215;5181237">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20120801;23571212">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" DIR="LTR">
<DIV TYPE=HEADER>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.5cm"><BR><BR>
</P>
</DIV>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="LibreOffice 3.6 (Windows)">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20130106;13324393">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20130106;13344764">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" DIR="LTR">
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT SIZE=4 STYLE="font-size: 16pt"><B>This post is out of date. An improved reply to the KCA can be found
<A HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-reply-to-kalam-cosmological-argument.html">here</A>.
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><BR><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#33a3a3"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=4 STYLE="font-size: 16pt"><B>The
Kalam Cosmological Argument Provides no Support for Theism</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Introduction"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>0)
Introduction</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>1)
A contradiction follows from William Lane Craig's position</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>2</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#craigsreply"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>)
Craig's reply</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#contradiction"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>3)
Still a contradiction</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#openinterval"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>4)
The open interval variant</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#bigbangcontradiction"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>5)
A contradiction in the Big Bang Theory?</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#continuoustime"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>6)
Continuous time and continuous changes</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#timelesschange"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7)
Timeless change?</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#discretetime"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7.1)
Discrete time</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#noontologicaldifference"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7.2)
No ontological difference – God vs. God and God vs. the
universe</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#noontologicaldifference2"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7.3)
No ontological difference – God vs. the universe, in even
greater detail</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#quiescence"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7.3.1)
Quiescence and changelessness</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#causation"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7.3.2)
Causation</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#godchange"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7.3.2.1)
God's change, causation, and the change in the universe</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#freewill"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7.3.2.2)
Free will, determinism and indeterminism</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#inandofthemselves"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7.3.2.3)
Agents acting 'in and of themselves'?</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#meaningbegin"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>8)
The meaning of 'begins to exist'</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#firstpremise"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>9)
The first premise of the KCA </B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#hotel1"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>10)
The 'Hilbert Hotel' argument</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#philosiphicalinfinity"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>11)
Philosophical arguments against an infinite past</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Shandy"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>11.1)
The contradictory case of Tristram Shandy</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#orbits"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>11.2)
Orbits and parity</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="background: transparent; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#shbbm"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">12)
The "Standard Hot Big Bang Model", a tensed theory of time,
and the KCA</SPAN></B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><U>
</U></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="background: transparent; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#tenselessKCA"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>13)
The KCA and a tenseless theory of time</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="background: transparent; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#assumingcause"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>14)
The (purported) cause of the universe: further analysis</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#firstcause"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>14.1)
A single first cause?</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#changelessness"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>14.2)
Changelessness and immateriality</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#timelessnessa"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>14.3)
Timelessness and the open interval variant</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#spacelessness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>14.4)
Spacelessness</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><U>
</U></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#power"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>14.5)
Power</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#personhood"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>14.6)
Personhood</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#personalvsscientific"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>14.6.1)
Personal explanations and scientific explanations</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#otherproperties"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>14.6.2)
Other properties of the alleged first cause</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#free"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>14.6.3)
'Free agency'</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#godmeaning"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>14.7)
The meaning of 'God'</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<A HREF="#Conclusion"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>15)
Conclusion</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#notesreferences"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>Notes
and references</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%"><BR><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Introduction"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>0)
Introduction:</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>a)
In this article, I will show that the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(KCA) </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3>does not provide any
support for theism. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
premises of the KCA are: </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#kalam"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>[1]</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>P1:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>P2:
The universe began to exist. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>William
Lane Craig and other theists offer a number of arguments in support
of the premises of the KCA, concluding that the universe has a cause.
Then, they provide further arguments in support of the claim that the
cause is God. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
the </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>first
section</FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>,
I will show that a contradiction follows from William Lane Craig's
position. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
the</FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#If an A-Theory of time is true no timelessg God">
</A><A HREF="#craigsreply"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>second
section,</FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
will address Craig's reply to the objection to the KCA that I raised
in the first section of <A HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/kalam-cosmological-argument-provides-no.html">a
previous argument against the KCA</A>, which is the same I will raise
in the <A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">first section </A>of this
argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other sections, I will raise other objections to the KCA, as well as
to the added conclusion – even assuming that the universe had a
cause of its existence – that the cause is God. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>b)
I will focus on William Lane Craig's version of the KCA, given that
that is the most common one.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>c)
</FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Unless
otherwise specified, I assume that a tensed theory of time is true.
Craig and all other defenders of the KCA, to the best of my
knowledge, defend the KCA in the context of a tensed theory. <BR>I
will, however, address a potential attempt to run the KCA on a
tenseless theory, just for the sake of thoroughness. <A HREF="#tenselessKCA">Section
thirteen</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">deals
with that alternative. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>d) On a
terminological note, I will use the word “argument”
loosely, to refer to both the formal argument, and the informal
arguments used to support the premises of the formal argument. I
think this is a common way of speaking, and context should prevent
any ambiguity despite some notational abuse. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>e) Before I go on,
let me point out that I make no claim of novelty: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The Kalam
Cosmological Argument has been around for considerable time, and I
got some of the ideas I'm using in my arguments from many sources on
the internet.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In other cases, I
came up with the ideas for my arguments on my own; however, given for
how long the KCA has been debated, I have no good reason to think
that I'm the first one to come up those ideas, so I don't claim any
novelty in that, either – I merely claim that the KCA provides
no support for theism, and that this article shows that. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="AcontradictioninCraig"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>1)
A contradiction follows from William Lane Craig's position </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>William
Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair<A HREF="#event1">[3]</A>: </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>By
an “event,” one means any change. Since any change takes
time, there are no instantaneous events so defined. Neither could
there be an infinitely slow event, since such an “event”
would, in reality, be a changeless state. Therefore, any event will
have a finite, nonzero duration.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>William
Lane Craig<A HREF="#rsf1">[4]</A></B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
reason I hold God to be timeless without the universe is that I think
that an infinite regress of events is impossible, and, according to a
relational theory of time, in the absence of any events time would
not exist. The reason I hold God to be temporal since the beginning
of the universe is that the creation of the universe brings God into
a new relation, namely, co-existing with the universe, and such an
extrinsic change alone (not to mention God’s exercise of causal
power) is sufficient for a temporal relation. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>William
Lane Craig<A HREF="#rsf2">[5]</A></B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So
if God is timeless, he is also unchanging, but it does not follow
that He cannot change. I’d say that He can change and if He
were to do so, He would cease to be timeless. And that’s
exactly what I think He did. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>God
<I>changes </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">from
timeless to temporal. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Any
change is an event</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>,
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">so
let </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">E(0)
be the event “God changes from being timeless to being
temporal”.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#othergodchanges"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>[6]</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>.</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Now,
if t=0 is the beginning of time, then E(0) is a change that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>ends</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
precisely </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at
t=0, since t=0 is the first time at which God is temporal. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Since every event
has a finite, non-zero duration, E(0) has some duration e>0, and
ends at t=0. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Then, there is a
time interval of duration e prior to t=0. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>contradicts</B></I></FONT></FONT>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
hypothesis that t=0 is the beginning of time.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="craigsreply"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2)
Craig's reply</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>After
someone raised the issue on his website, Craig replied<A HREF="#notecraigreply">[7]</A></FONT></FONT>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>to the objection I
raised in <A HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/kalam-cosmological-argument-provides-no.html#AcontradictioninCraig">section
one of an earlier version of my argument</A></FONT></FONT> –
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>which is the same
I've raised in <A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">section one of this
article</A>, though I provided a shorter explanation of my objection
in the earlier version. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Craig
replied that God's gaining knowledge of tensed facts (for instance)
does not qualify as an event, since it's "instantaneous".
<A HREF="#notecraigreply">[7]</A></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First,
his claim is </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>false</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
<A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">H</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>e
defined 'event' as 'any change', and those are obviously changes.</FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>He
did not define 'change' excluding 'instantaneous' changes, as one can
easily see from the quotation from his book I posted earlier.</FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second,
<A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">as I also showed earlier,
instantaneous changes entail a contradiction</A></FONT></FONT> –
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>regardless of
whether Craig chooses not to call them 'changes' anymore. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
aside, let's continue analyzing Craig's reply to my objection: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>William
Lane Craig<A HREF="#notecraigreply">[7]</A></B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9269"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
reason I give for so restricting the range of “event” is
that I’m talking about changes, and changes take time to occur.</FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First,
Craig does not restrict the range of 'event' at all in his
definition, and so he gave no reason for restricting the range at
all. Instead, he </FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>defined</B></I></FONT>
<FONT SIZE=3>'event' as 'any change', and then </FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>argued
</B></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
there, that any event will have a finite, non-zero duration. So, the
'restriction' is a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">consequence
of his reasoning, </SPAN></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">stipulative
definition. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
is obvious in <A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">the quotation from his
book I gave for context</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(due
to copyright reasons, I may not post long parts of his book, but that
part suffices to make that clear; of course, I invite readers to take
a look at his book more closely in case of any doubt). </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second, that changes
take time to occur is precisely one of my points, which I use to
derive a contradiction on Craig's position. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Again,
Craig actually </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>claimed</I></FONT></FONT></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>that changes take
time to occur. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
fact, he claimed that there are no instantaneous events <A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">precisely
because any change takes time</A>, and he defined "event"
as "any change". </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
I pointed out that the </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>change
– </I></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>for
instance – </FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">from
a state S at which God does not know any tensed truths (because there
aren't any tensed facts), to a state at which God knows some tensed
truths (at t=0) is, well, a </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>change</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and changes take time to occur – as Craig stated -, from which
<A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">a contradiction follows.</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>William
Lane Craig</B></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>[7]</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><U>
</U>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000066"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Similarly,
God’s coming to believe all tensed truths would not qualify as
an event, since it, too, happens instantaneously.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
that is false. Since God's coming to believe at least one tensed
truth is a change, then it follows – <A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">by
his own definition</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT> – <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
it's an event. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
fact, by claiming that it's instantaneous, Craig is only
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">contradicting
his own claim that all changes take time</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Once
again, this follows <A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">from the
previous quotation of his book</A>. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Yet,
in his reply to the objection I raised, Craig claims</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<A HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[7]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
God's gaining knowledge of tensed facts is instantaneous, and
therefore it's not a change in God in "this technical sense".
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>there
is no such "this technical sense" of "change" in
Craig's KCA, since – </I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">as
we can see in his </A><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">book</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
– </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>did
not</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>define
"change" at all.</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
only sense of 'change' is the usual sense of 'change' in English; in
other words, he left 'change' undefined, used the usual concept in
order to define "event" - as is apparent in the quote </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>above</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">-,
and then </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>argued
from there</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><U>
– </U></SPAN></SPAN></A><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>keeping
in mind the usual meaning of 'change' -, that any change takes time</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Of
course, God's change from not knowing any tensed truths to knowing at
least some tensed truths is, well, a </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>change</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
the usual sense of the word 'change' in English, and </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>by
Craig's own reasoning,</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">we
can conclude that it takes time, and thus derive a contradiction, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>as
I did above</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
in short, Craig did not </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>define
</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">"events"
as having zero duration. Neither did he define "change" as
having a non-zero duration, or at all. Instead, he defined "event"
as "any change", and </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>assessed
</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
events/changes have non-zero duration, as </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>the
previous quotation</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><A HREF="#event1"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>from
his book</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">shows
(once again, I invite readers interested in more details can take a
look at his book and see more context for themselves). </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Yet,
the changes I'm talking about are obviously changes in the usual
sense of the word "change" in English – which is the
one he was using in the context of the KCA -, and assuming that they
have a non-zero duration, a contradiction follows </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>as
explained</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">(I
will </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#contradiction"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>later</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">show
that, in any case, a contradiction follows regardless of whether we
assume that the changes take time or are instantaneous). </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
addition to the above, Craig claims that there is no beginning or
ending to those changes/events – which he describes as "events"
in quotes – as – he claims, beginning to move or coming
to exist do not have a beginning or ending </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>[7]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="craigbegin"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, there
clearly would be a beginning point of the event, say, 'God changes
from not knowing any tensed truths, to knowing at least one tensed
truth', if such event/change made sense. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A beginning point
would be a state without any changes occurring <I>within </I>that
state, and the same for an endpoint. And so, in this particular case,
the beginning point would be the only state at which God does not now
any tensed truths. And the endpoint would be the first state at which
God knows at least one tensed truth. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, the claim that
such changes have no beginning or ending are false. If such changes
were possible, there clearly would have a beginning point and an
endpoint. That follows from the description of the changes, as I just
explained. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
addition to the previous claims, in his </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">reply
to my objection, Craig contends that in the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>second
and third quotations</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
he was using "change" in a different sense from the sense
in which he used the word in the context of the KCA, and that in
those </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>second
and third quotations</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
he "merely" meant that God does not have the same
properties in his timeless state as he does in his first temporal
state</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>[7]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But an analysis of
his words show that he <I>clearly</I> did not <I><B>merely</B></I>
meant that – that is only <I>part</I> of what he meant. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In fact, Craig said
that God changed <I>from</I> timeless <I>to</I> temporal, and ceased
to be timeless. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>He did not say hat
God changed <I>from</I> temporal <I>to</I> timeless, or that he
ceased to be timeless – clearly, that <I>would not have meant
the same</I>, and Craig himself does not accept the possibility of
change from temporal to timeless. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
when Craig said that God had changed – in the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>second
and third quotations</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><U>
– </U></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">he
did not merely meant that God in his timeless state has different
properties from God in his first temporal state. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The claim of a
change is not only a claim that the properties differ, but there is
also a <I>direction: </I>God has some properties in his timeless
state, and <I>changes</I> and has some other properties in his first
temporal state: it goes in one direction, not the other. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In other words, the
change is from the timeless to the temporal state, not vice versa, so
what he meant is not <I>merely</I> that God's properties in his
timeless state are different from his properties in his first
temporal state: change is not directionless. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
that </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>still</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
the usual sense of "change" in English, as he used in his
book, in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as far as one can tell from
his statements. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, in brief: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>a) Craig's claim
that he used 'change' in a technical sense in his book, is a false
claim. He used it in the ordinary sense of the words. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">b)
Craig's claim that he used 'changed' to merely say that God has
different properties in his timeless and first temporal states, is
also </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>false.</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Once
again, he used 'changed' in the ordinary sense of the words in
English. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">c)
The fact remains that </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>a
contradiction follows from Craig's position</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
aside, Craig also maintains</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#notecraigreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>[7]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
in any case, one can change the definition of "event" in
the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and clarify
that the events in question are events of non-zero, finite, equal
duration. Actually, if he did that, he would be withdrawing his claim
that any change takes time, rather than merely clarifying his claims.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, that is a
side point. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
crucial point is that if we do that, or if we we make, for the sake
of the argument, the false assumption that Craig said what he later
claimed he had said, </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>a
contradiction still follows</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In fact, a
contradiction can be derived without any assumptions about what Craig
said, as the next section shows. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="contradiction"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>3)
Still a contradiction</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In this subsection: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>a) By 'event' I mean
the same as 'change'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>b) By 'P(2)' I mean
the property of knowing at least one tensed truth. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>c) By 'E(2)' I mean
the event/change 'God changes from not having P(2) to having P(2) for
the first time'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>d) By 'S' I mean the
allegedly timeless state of God, at which God does not have P(2). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>e) By 't=0' I mean
the first temporal state of the world – and of God. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Note that, given
Craig's account, E(2) exists. Craig may choose not to call it an
'event', or a 'change', but that is not my concern in this section.
It's clearly an event/change in the usual sense of the word 'change'
in English, so that's good enough. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">While</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#craigbegin">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig seems to claim otherwise</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the event/change E(2) has a beginning point, and it has an endpoint,
both of which one can easily show: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The beginning point
is the only state of the world at which God does not now any tensed
truths. The endpoint is the first state of the world at which God
knows at least one tensed truth. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, we have a
change/event from a beginning point, to an endpoint. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If E(2) has a
duration e>0, then since E(2) finished at the initial temporal
state T(0), there is a temporal interval of duration e>0, prior to
T(0). But that is a contradiction, no matter how small e is. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If E(2) has a
duration zero, then since the final point of E(2) - namely, the first
state at which God has property P(2) - obtains at T(0), and the
duration of E(2) is actually zero, then it seems that the initial
point of E(2) - a state at which it is not the case that God has
property P(2) - also obtains at T(0). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Note that the change
is not said to take some small time, not even some kind of
infinitesimal, but exactly zero. It can't be that it's some
infinitesimal, either, because <I>it ends at t=0, </I>which is the
absolute beginning of time. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Hence, at t=0, God
has property P(2), and it is not the case that God has property P(2).
But that is a contradiction. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might suggest that E(2) does not have a zero duration, or a non-zero
duration, but somehow 'duration' does not apply to it, because it's
'partly timeless'. I will address that in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#timelesschange"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">section
7</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also, someone might
object that the initial state of E(2) is not present at T(0), but at
timeless state S, and the final state is present at T(0). However, if
there is a change from some beginning point to some other endpoint,
and the duration of such an event is actually zero, then both ends
exist at the same time, and a contradiction follows. <I>Duration </I>is
a measure of time, not of 'timelessness' - whatever that is. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, the person who
claims that the contradiction is somehow averted because one point is
'timeless', or something like that, would have the burden to explain
what they mean by 'timeless' and how that would allow them to avert
the contradiction...but that would clearly fail, since deriving the
contradiction is unproblematic. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Still,
and while the burden would be on the theist defender of the KCA, I
will </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#timelesschange"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">later</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">take
the initiative and show that the so-called 'timeless' state </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#noontologicaldifference"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">fails
to be anything different from a first temporal state</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but briefly, here I will point out that the actual situation would be
one of an uncaused creator with a beginning at the first temporal
state. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, Craig description entails that there is a first state of
the world – which would be a first </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">temporal</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">state
-, an uncaused God, and then a second state of the world, and so on. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
accepting that would contradict the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#Introduction"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">first
premise </FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
the KCA. <BR>So, Craig claims that the first state is 'timeless' -
whatever that might mean. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Yet, it's still a
change, and it still has a beginning point and an endpoint, as
explained above. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Denying that the
first temporal state is actually temporal, but without actually
denoting any difference, is what allows the derivation of a
contradiction as before, since what actually would be happening is an
ordinary event/change from the first to the second temporal state of
the world, but with the defender of the KCA committed to a claim that
that is not so. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Of
course, showing that the so-called 'timeless' state </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#noontologicaldifference"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
nothing but a first temporal state of the world</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">blocks
Craig's KCA on its own, without further arguing to a contradiction,
but the argument given so far is simpler and sufficient. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="openinterval"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>4)
The open interval variant</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
order to derive a <A HREF="#contradiction">contradiction</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">above,
I assumed a first temporal state, and someone might suggest that
Craig does not claim that. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In this section,
will prove that Craig's arguments and claims in the context of the
KCA (henceforth, Craig's arguments), entail that there is a first
actual temporal state of the world. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
will prove this by contradiction, considering both the possibility
that temporal units are instants, and the possibility that they are
intervals which are not dividable into smaller ones. Considering such
possibilities is enough, since infinitely dividable intervals aren't
compatible with some of Craig's arguments, as I will show <A HREF="#discretetime">later</A>.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I will not address
the matter of whether there is any ontological difference between
instants and non-dividable intervals as the units of time, or it's
just a matter of notation. It's not necessary to settle that matter
here, since the arguments I will give work regardless of that: if
there is no ontological difference, then the argument that only
considers instants suffices. Else, both arguments suffice. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>a) Instants</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
the units of time are instants, let's assume that there is a sequence
of instants such that t(n+1) < t(n), for every n. We may take them
such that there is no instant between t(n+1) and t(n), since Craig's
position entails that time is discrete, which I will show <A HREF="#discretetime">later</A>.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So let's define, for
every natural n, the following actual events/changes: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>E(n): = 'God
comes to know that t(n+1) is past' </B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(i.e.,
God changes from not knowing that t(n+1) is past to knowing that
t(n+1) is past). </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Clearly, those are
<I>infinitely many past actual events/changes</I>; E(n+1) occurs
before E(n). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That's
incompatible with Craig's arguments. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alternatively,
we might – for instance -, take the events 'God comes to know
that t(n) is present', for all n, reaching the same conclusion. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
any case, the conclusion is that if units of time are instants,
Craig's arguments entail no infinitely many past actual events –
not even of unequal length. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
there is a t(0)=0, and a corresponding state of the world T(0). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Clearly,
and reasoning in a similar manner, there is t(1), and T(1), the next
instant and its corresponding state of the world, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>b)
Intervals</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
the temporal units are non-dividable intervals, then let's suppose
there is no first non-dividable interval I(0). Constructing a
sequence of non-dividable intervals I(n+1) < I(n) and the
corresponding changes experienced by God, we immediately get an
infinite past series of actual ordered events, which is incompatible
with Craig's arguments. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Hence,
if the units are non-dividable intervals, it follows from Craig's
arguments that there is a first interval I(0), and a corresponding
first temporal state of the world T(0). Similarly, there is I(1),
T(1), etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="bigbangcontradiction"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">5)
A contradiction in the Big Bang Theory?</SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">No,
of course there is no contradiction in the Big Bang Theory. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
I've encountered the objection that, allegedly, my reasoning to a
<A HREF="#contradiction">contradiction</A></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">proves
too much, since it would make any change from a timeless state
contradictory, and that would make the Big Bang Theory contradictory,
since the initial singularity has been seen as timeless. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Now,
the Big Bang is a hot, dense state of the universe that existed about
13.7 billion years ago. There is no point of infinite density (what
would that even mean?), or actual singularity, or a 'timeless' state.
We should not confuse a singularity in a mathematical model with
reality. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Also,
even if a model – <A HREF="#Appendix4">like the one Craig
mistakenly beliefs supports the KCA</A></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
– </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">adds
an initial point – say, a time t=0 -, tha</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">t
should not be seen as existing in reality. Indeed, the model does not
allow a way out of the singularity. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">That
said, let's consider the issue of the contradiction: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Even
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">if
we assume that there is an initial singularity of infinite density –
whatever that might mean, but that's not even defined -, and that
such singularity is timeless – whatever that might mean; also,
not even defined -, the reasoning by which I derived a <A HREF="#contradiction">contradiction</A></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">before
doesn't work in this case. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
my reasoning, I <A HREF="#contradiction">define the following
event/change:</A></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">By
'P(2)' I mean the property of knowing at least one tensed truth. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">By
'E(2)' I mean the event/change 'God changes from not having P(2) to
having P(2) for the first time'. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">That
assumes that there is a first temporal state at which God has
property P(2), namely T(0)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">As
I showed </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#openinterval"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">earlier</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
in the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#openinterval"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">previous
section</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
I'm justified in assuming that there is such a T(0) in order to
derive a contradiction from Craig's position because that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#openinterval"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">follows
from Craig's own position</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Someone
might try to define an event 'the universe changes from timeless to
temporal', and argue that the change has duration zero, because it
begins at the timeless state, and has already ended at any time 1/n,
for any natural n. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
in that case, the change/event does not have an endpoint. It's fuzzy.
Being 'temporal' is not a state of the universe, but a beginningless
sets of states, for all t>0. Without an endpoint, the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#contradiction"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">reasoning
by which I derived a contradiction </FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
blocked. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="continuoustime"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>6)
Continuous time and continuous changes</B></FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Another
objection that might be raised would also hold that my argument to a
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#contradiction"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">contradiction</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
if correct, would prove too much. The objection would go as follows: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Let's
assume that time is continuous, and so are changes in the universe. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">That
might or might not be true, but it is not contradictory. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">So,
let's pick any specific point in time, say t(3), and lets define the
following event: </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">E(t(3)):
The universe changes from its state S(t(3)) at t(3), to no longer
being at state S(t(3)). </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Now,
what's the duration of E(t(3))? </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Since
the changes of the universe are continuous and happen all the time,
then E(t(3)) has already happened at (t(3) + 1/n seconds), for all
natural numbers n. Hence, the duration of E(t(3)) is literally zero.
Since E(t(3)) begins at t(3), and its duration is literally zero, its
endpoint is also present at t(3). So, at t(3), it is not the case
that the universe is at state E(t(3)). That is a contradiction. So,
this reasoning must be flawed, since it would derive a contradiction
from continuous time plus continuous changes, but continuous time
plus continuous changes is not contradictory. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
there is no endpoint in this case. In fact, 'no longer being at state
S(t(3))' is not actually a state of the universe, but a beginningless
set of ordered states. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">So,
E(t(3)) is a sort of a fuzzy event. If we can say that the duration
is zero because there are states S(t), with t>t(3), and
arbitrarily close in time to S(t(3)), then fact is that there would
be no initial point and end point at the same time, since there is no
endpoint of the fuzzy event, and so that does not result in a
contradiction. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>7)
Timeless change?</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="timelesschange"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Perhaps,
Craig or someone else might then claim</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
the change I use to derive a </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#contradiction"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>contradiction</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><U>
– </U></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
it is a change, in the usual sense of the word 'change' in English –
does not have either a zero duration, or a non-zero duration, but
somehow it's a timeless or partially timeless change, and somehow for
that so-called 'reason' one shouldn't speak of duration of them. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
if they did </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>that</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
I would first point out that Craig claimed that the first cause is –
at least in his timeless state, 'sans the universe' -, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#changelessness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>changeless</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage192"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>[9]</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>How could then that
change be 'timeless' or 'partially timeless'? What would that even
mean? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Also,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#craigsreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U>Craig
claims now that the changes I'm talking about are 'instantaneous</U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>What does Craig even
mean, then, by 'instantaneous', if not 'having a zero duration'? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But let's leave the
matter of what he meant by that aside. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Essentially, the
crucial point is that Craig applies the label 'timeless' to name a
scenario that actually should be characterized as God's existing at
t=0, with a temporal beginning but without a cause, and then creating
the universe at the next temporal instant. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>By calling the state
in question 'timeless' - instead of 't=0' -, Craig is denying that
the state is temporal, from the description of the state and Craig's
arguments in the context of the KCA, one can see that it has all of
the features of an initial temporal state; in other words, it would
be an initial temporal state, which would change into a second
temporal state, and that change of course takes time. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, in particular,
Craig's creator, if he existed, would in fact be an entity that has a
beginning in the first temporal state of the world, but no cause,
contradicting the first premise of the KCA. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I will show this in
the next two subsections: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="discretetime"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>7.1)
Discrete time </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In this subsection,
I will prove that Craig's arguments entail that time is discrete, in
the following sense: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>a) If the units of
time are instants, then for every two times t and u such that t <
u, there are only finitely many instants in time between the two.
Models may contain infinitely many ones, but there are only finitely
many <I>actual</I> instants. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>b) If the units of
time are intervals, then for every temporal interval [a,b], there is
some non-negative integer N(a,b), such that [a,b] cannot be divided
into more than N(a,b) smaller consecutive temporal subintervals. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I will give proofs
by contradiction in both cases. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>a) Instants: </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's assume, that
God exists, a tensed theory of time is true, and that there are
infinitely many actual instants between times t and u, where t <
u. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Then either there is
an increasing sequence, or a decreasing one.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's say there is
an increasing sequence, for all natural n: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>t < t(n) <
t(n+1) < u</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Let's
consider the following sequences of </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actual
</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">events/changes</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>G(n): God changes
from not knowing that t(n) is present, to knowing that t(n) is
present. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>Note
that those are </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>actual</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>changes</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>in God's
mind. </FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>While
it's true that those are not changes of equal duration (if they even
have a duration), that is orthogonal to the matter at hand, which is
the fact is that those are all </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>actual
</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>changes
experienced by God's mind. </FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Since
at time u or later, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">every
single one </SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
those changes G(n) has occurred (i.e, for all n, G(n) has occurred),
then the number of ordered actual changes in God's mind that are in
the sequence is</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
ℵ</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SUB><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>0.
</B></SPAN></FONT></SUB></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
the events {G(n)} would be a case of an actual infinity, according to
Craig's position, since the events are actual </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage116"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[1]</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
Craig's arguments are incompatible with an actual infinity, and in
particular with infinitely many actual events, one after then next. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#notepage116"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[8]</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
second premise states that <I>an infinite temporal regress of events
is an actual infinite.</I> </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
point seems obvious enough, for if there has been a sequence composed
of an infinite number of events stretching back into the past, then
the set of all events in the series would be an actually infinite
set.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Clearly,
that does not depend on the length of the events, as long as they're
actual changes in the world. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage116"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[8]</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So
when we say that the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">number
of past events is infinite, we mean that prior to today, ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><B>0</B></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
events have elapsed.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">Once
again, that does not depend on the length of the events. And Craig
goes on to claim that ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><B>0</B></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
events are impossible. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage116"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[8]</SPAN></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Because
the series of past events is an actual infinite, all the absurdities
attending the</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>existence
of an actual infinite apply to it. For example, if the series of past
events is actually</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>infinite,
then the number of events that have occurred up to the present is no
greater than</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
number that have occurred</SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
any point in the past. </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>While
Craig was talking about events of equal length, that is not relevant
to whether or not they're actually infinite; indeed, if the previous
paragraph actually showed any absurdity, that would be so regardless
of whether the events are of equal length. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
case of a decreasing sequence is essentially the same. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
if the temporal units are instants, Craig's arguments entail that
time is discrete. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>b)
Intervals </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
consider, then, the case of intervals, not instants. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let
us assume that for an interval [a,b], there is a strictly increasing
sequence m(n), for all n, such that for every n, [a,b] can be divided
into m(n) different actual, smaller intervals, one before the next. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
for each n, let's divide [a,b] on m(n) intervals I(1,n)<I(2,n)<
...<I(m(n),n), where '<' denotes the 'earlier than' relation. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
let us consider, for every n, and for every k in {1, 2, ...m(n)}, the
following distinct, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actual
</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">events/changes:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>J(k,n):
God changes from not knowing that I(k,n) is present to knowing that
I(k,n) is present. </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
crucial question is: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>How
many distinct <I>actual</I> events/changes happened in the world
during the temporal interval [a,b]? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
yet other words, assuming that there weren't more distinct actual
events/changes than any cardinality – else, we're through -,
what is the cardinality of the set of distinct </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>actual
</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">changes
that happened in the world during the temporal interval [a,b]? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">If
the answer is that the number is finite, then let </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><B>p(0)</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
be that number. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">Then,
we may consider the distinct </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>actual</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
changes </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><B>J(k,m(p(0)+3)) </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">(for
instance), for all </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><B>k </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">in
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><B>{1, 2, ..., m(p(0)+3)}</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">,
reaching a contradiction. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
the number of <I>actual</I> changes in [a,b] is at least ℵ<SUB><B>0</B></SUB>.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
that's incompatible with Craig's arguments. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Hence,
if the temporal units are intervals, Craig's arguments entail that
time is discrete.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>An
immediate corollary is that every interval that is dividable into
smaller subintervals, is dividable into finitely many smaller
subintervals such that each of them is not, in turn, dividable into
any smaller subintervals. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
see this, let [a,b] be an interval that is dividable into smaller
subinterval. Then, there is a natural number N(a,b), such that [a,b]
cannot be divided into more than N(a,b) smaller subintervals. Let's
divide [a,b] into the maximum number of subintervals into which [a,b]
can be divided. Then, each of those subintervals is non-dividable
into smaller ones. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noontologicaldifference"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><B>7.2)
No ontological difference – God vs. God and God vs. the
universe</B></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's consider the
following two scenarios, ordering the states in terms of causal
priority. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario 1:</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First
state of the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Timeless
state S. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
only object is God, which exists timelessly at S and without a cause.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second
state of the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First
temporal state T(0). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>God
exists temporally, and the universe exists. The change from the first
to the second state of the world, including the creation of the
universe and God's own change from timeless to temporal, takes place
because God intends to bring it about. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Third
state of the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second
temporal state T(1). The objects are God, the universe, and perhaps
some other objects. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario 2:</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First
temporal state T(0). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
only object is God, who exists temporally at T(0) and without a
cause. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second
temporal state T(1). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>God
exists temporally, and the universe exists. The change from the first
to the second state of the world, including the creation of the
universe and God's own change from timeless to temporal, takes place
because God intends to bring it about. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Third
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Third
temporal state T(2). The objects are God, the universe, and the same
other objects as in the <A HREF="#scenario1">previous scenario</A></FONT></FONT>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>(if any), with the
same causes. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
key point here is that the so-called 'timeless' state in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario
1</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>exactly</B></I></FONT></FONT>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">like
the first temporal state T(0) in <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A>.
In other words, there is no </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>ontological</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">difference
whatsoever, even if different </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>words</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
used: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In both cases, what
we have is a first state of the world changing into the next, and so
on. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In both cases, God
exists without a cause of his existence at the first state of the
world. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In both cases, the
universe exists at the second state of the world, and exists because
God intends to bring it about, and so on. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Also,
saying that the difference between the two scenarios is that one
state – namely, S in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
– </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
timeless and the other – namely, T(0) in <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario
2</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
– </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
temporal, or that in one of them there at least one tensed fact,
whereas in the other one there are no tensed facts, would fail to
address the point, since that would simply amount to </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>denying</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
there is no ontological difference, without explaining </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>how</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">or
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>why</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
is so, which is a burden on the theist defender of the KCA, since we
can conclude that the states are ontologically identical, just by
looking at the description</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
those states, and regardless of the use of the word 'timeless' in the
first one. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Someone
might say that God in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
changeless, but not in <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A>. However,
that is not the case: just as God changes from his first to his
second state in <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A>, he does so in
<A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A>.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, it remains the
case that there is an entity – i.e., God – that exists at
a first state of the world and without a cause of his existence,
changes to a second state, then to a third one, etc., regardless of
whether the first state of that entity is <I>called </I>'timeless'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alternatively,
someone might raise the following objection: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>An
ontological difference is that temporal states of God </I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>must</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>change
as time goes by, whereas the timeless state S in </I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>could
have remained unchanged. In other words, if God exists at temporal
state T(0) – as in </I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">–</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>necessarily</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there will be a second temporal state T(1), and </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>necessarily</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
God will change from T(0) to T(1), since his knowledge of tensed
truths will change. On the other hand, if God exists in a timeless
state S (as in </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">),
then it is </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>possible</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
given that first timeless state of God, that God never changes</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
problem with that objection is that it follows from any creation
hypotheses posited by theist defenders of the KCA </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222">–
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">i.e.,
given what God's first state actually would be, based on the
implications of their claims –</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
that it is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">impossible</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
God never changes given that first state, which means both </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
indistinguishable in that regard as well, as the following reasoning
shows: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario3"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario
3:</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First
state of the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Timeless
state S. The only object is God, which exists timelessly at S and
without a cause. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second
state of the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Temporal
state T(0). God exists temporally, and the universe exists. The
change from the first to the second state of the world, including the
creation of the universe and God's own change from timeless to
temporal, takes place because of God intends to bring it about. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario4"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario
4: </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First
state of the world: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Timeless
state S. The only object is God, which exists timelessly at S and
without a cause. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There
are no temporal states of the world. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
if God does not intend </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>at
S</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
change from timeless to temporal, then at T(0) God </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just
found himself altered</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
In other words, if God's intent to change does not exist at </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>at
S</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then the change is not something brought because God intends to bring
it about, but something that happened </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God,
beyond his intent. That is so because the change under consideration
is a change </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
God's state, and from his first state at S. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, it's a change </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
S to T(0). </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
said change cannot have been caused by God's intent only at T(0),
given that S is causally prior to T(0). </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
if God does not intend </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>at
S</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
change from timeless to temporal, then God </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">found
himself changed </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
T(0); the change is something that happened </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God,
not something that God brought about. But that contradicts the
hypothesis that the change in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">happens
because God intends to bring it about. Thus, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">at
S</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God
intends to bring about his change from timeless to temporal. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Hence,
given God's state </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">at
S</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it is impossible that God does not change, since God can't fail to
bring about what he intends to bring about. Moreover, just as in
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
is impossible that God does not change, the same is true and for the
same reasons in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Also, the states denoted by 'S' in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario4"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
4</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">respectively,
are not the same. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might suggest that, in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
God exercised his libertarian free will at T(0) to bring about the
change, but </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
S</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
he does not intend to change. However, leaving aside issues about the
coherence of libertarian free will, that is impossible for the
reasons I explained above: since the change under consideration is
God's change </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
S to T(0)</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it cannot have been decided only at T(0). At T(0), the change already
obtains. Also, the state S is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">causally
prior</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
T(0), so a change </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
God's condition at S</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">cannot
have been decided only at T(0). Thus, as concluded above, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">at
S</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">God
intends to change from timeless to temporal. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
the reasoning above shows that, once again, the theist fails to make
an ontological difference between </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1 </FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Since
God's first state in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
a temporal state, it follows that the same is true of God's first
state in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1 </FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">–
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and,
for that matter, in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-,
and that both </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">should
be corrected, and the first state should not be called 'timeless'.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">concede
that there is no ontological difference between </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1 </FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
but raise an objection and claim that in that scenario God exists
timelessly at his first state. So, according to this objection, the
right conclusion is not that </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">both
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">should
be corrected, and the first state should not be called 'timeless',
but rather, that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenariio2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">should
be corrected, and the first state of God should be called 'timeless'.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
objection fails, though, since the first state of God in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario
1</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
<A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">changes
to the second one, just as the second state changes to the third one,
and so on, so there is no quiescent or changeless state of God. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
fact that the first state is not preceded by other states is not
relevant when it comes to the fact that it changes to the second,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just
as </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
second changes to the third, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">without
any period of quiescence or lack of change</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
So, there is no changelessness or quiescence. But no changelessness
or no quiescence entails no timelessness, by the way in which Craig
uses the word 'timeless' - assuming, as usual, that he means
something by it – and so the first state of God in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">should
not be called 'timeless' at all. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
any event, we do not even need the previous result, in order to show
that positing a creator that is in some mysterious sense – or
it seems an incoherent 'sense', but that aside -, 'timeless' sans the
universe, but temporal with the universe, will not help theism. So,
if a theist insists, against very good reasons, that the first state
in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
timeless, then we may simply posit, as an alternative, that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
universe</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">might
as well exist without a cause if its existence at a first state of
the world, then change to its second state, and so on. If the first
state of God is somehow is properly called 'timeless' in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then due to a lack of a relevant difference, the same is true of the
first state of the universe in the following scenario: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario5"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario 5:</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
universe exists without a cause of its existence. Nothing else exists
– there may or may not be some things <I>in </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
universe, but nothing beyond the universe. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The universe has
changed and exists in its second state. Nothing else exists. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Just
as God exists without a cause in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
the universe exists without a cause in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Just
as God changes from the first to the second state of the world in
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
2</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario3"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
3</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
the universe so changes in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
Then, God in those scenarios continues to change from one state of
the world to the next, and the same is true of the universe in
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Thus,
there is no ontological difference between <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario1</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
<A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A>, and no ontological difference
that would justify denying that the first state of God is temporal in
either scenario, but wouldn't justify denying that the first state of
the universe is temporal in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Someone
might bring up 'quiescence', as an attempt to show that there is a
difference between <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario1</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
<A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A>, and/or that there is a
difference that would justify denying that God is temporal at his
first state in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A>, but would not
justify denying that the universe is temporal at its first state in
<A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>. On that note, and in an attempt
to distinguish between the universe and God, Craig makes the
following claim: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#event1"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[4]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
not, then since the universe cannot </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ever
have existed in an absolutely quiescent state, the universe must have
had a beginning. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, a
'quiescent' objection fails as well, for the following reasons: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">First,
as I explained earlier, there is no sense in which the first
so-called 'timeless' state S in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
quiescent, but the first temporal state T(0) in <A HREF="#scenario2">scenario
2</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
not. Indeed, in both cases, what we have is one first state of
affairs that </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>changes</I></FONT></FONT>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">into
another, second state of affairs. In both cases, God exists at the
first state of the world, and without a cause of his existence. In
both cases, also, God changes from his first state at the first state
of the world, to the second, and so on. God never remains unchanged
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>for
a while</I></FONT></FONT> <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>in
the <A HREF="#scenario1">first scenario</A></FONT></FONT> <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>but
not the <A HREF="#scenario2">second</A></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">-
that would require time -, or differs in any way between the
scenarios, by the description of them. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Second
– and now addressing Craig's contention about the universe -,
the same can be said about the universe in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario
5</A>: in that scenario, the universe exists at the first state of
the world, and without a cause of its existence. Also, the universe
changes from its first state at the first state of the world to its
second state at the second state of the world, there is no previous
change, and no period during which the universe remains unchanged.
But that is </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>exactly</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">what
happens in the case of God in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Moreover,
if, say, a particle exists in the universe at the first state in
<A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>, then any change in such particle
from the first to the second state of the world is still a change
from the first to the second state of the universe. There is no
previous change, or period during which the particle or the universe
remains unchanged, but that is </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>exactly</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">what
happens in the case of God in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Thus,
there is no sense in which God could properly be described as
'quiescent' at his first state in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario 1</A>,
but the universe couldn't properly be described as 'quiescent' at its
first state in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As
another objection, someone might say that in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario1</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
<A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A>, the change from the first to the
second state of the world, including the creation of the universe and
God's own change from timeless to temporal, takes place because God
intends to bring it about, whereas in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario
5</A>, the cause of the change is not specified. That is completely
unrelated to the issue of whether God or the universe are 'timeless',
changeless, quiescent, etc., but in any case, we may as well further
specify the scenario and add that, in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario
5</A>, the change from the first to the second state of the universe
is brought about by the universe's conditions at its first state
(including, of course, any particle interactions if there are any,
etc.), regardless of whether we put that in terms of substances and
causal powers, or in terms of substances and laws, etc. Thus, the
universe, which has certain conditions in its first state, brings
about the change to its second state, just as God and his intent at
the first state brings about the change in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario1</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
<A HREF="#scenario2">scenario 2</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">(and,
for that matter, <A HREF="#scenario3">scenario 3</A>). </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>This further
specification of scenario 5 is not required, though: we might as well
leave it unspecified, or alternatively even make the change
indeterministic in scenario 5, so that given the first state of the
universe, there is more than one possible second state, and only one
actually obtains, introducing a certain degree of randomness. That
would not make any difference whatsoever in terms of changelessness,
quiescence, or anything that might be called 'timelessness'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">All
that aside, a theist defender of the KCA might suggest that, perhaps,
the universe did not exist at the second state of the world, but only
at some later state. However, that clearly wouldn't make a
difference, either. We may simply posit scenarios like, say, scenario
<A HREF="#scenario1">1</A>, <A HREF="#scenario2">2</A>, and <A HREF="#scenario3">3</A>,
but without introducing the universe at the second state of the
world, and keep <A HREF="#scenario4">scenario 4</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
<A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">unchanged.
The same reasoning as above yields the same results, defeating the
attempt to make a distinction. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
to summarize, if God does not begin to exist in <A HREF="#scenario1">scenario
1</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">because
somehow he's 'timeless', 'changeless' and/or 'quiescent', then the
universe does not begin to exist in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">for
the same reasons, and the KCA fails, since the proponent of the KCA
does not have any argument to rule out something like <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario
5</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If,
on the other hand, God begins to exist in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then the KCA fails for that reason. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
previous considerations are sufficient to show that no current
version of the KCA provides any support for theism. For the sake of
thoroughness, though, in the <A HREF="#meaningbegin">next</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">sections,
I will raise other objections, which on their own suffice to show
that no version of the KCA provides any support for theism,
independently of the previous arguments. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
and before moving on to those other objections, I will add <A HREF="#noontologicaldifference2">another
subsection</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
<A HREF="#timelesschange">this section</A>, dedicated to an even more
detailed analysis of the comparison between God and the universe,
when it comes to beginning of existence. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">While
the previous considerations in <A HREF="#noontologicaldifference">this
subsection</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
enough to establish the failure of the KCA – as explained above
-, I've found a very misguided but very persistent theistic objection
involving causation, freedom and indeterminism, which shows a serious
misunderstanding of the arguments given earlier in <A HREF="#noontologicaldifference">this
subsection</A>, in addition to a <A HREF="#free">mistaken conception
of freedom</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">There
is no need for a refutation of the conception of libertarian freedom,
so I will leave such a refutation for <A HREF="#free">later</A>, and
dedicate the <A HREF="#noontologicaldifference2">next subsection</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
a detailed comparison of God and the universe, in terms of
beginnings, trying to clarify any points that remained unclear in
this section, and addressing the issue of freedom only in the context
of the scenarios under consideration, but in considerable detail as
well. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="noontologicaldifference2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>7.3)
No ontological difference – God vs. the universe, in even
greater detail</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's consider the
following scenarios, ordering the states of the world in terms of
causal priority: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario51"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario 5:</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
universe exists without a cause of its existence. Nothing else exists
– there may or may not be some things <I>in </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
universe, but nothing beyond the universe. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Temporal state of
the world. The universe has changed and exists in its second state.
Nothing else exists. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="scenario6"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Scenario 6: </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>First
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Timeless
state of the world. God exists without a cause of his existence.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Second
state of the world:</I> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Temporal state of
the world. God exists and the universe exists. God is the creator of
the universe. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
this subsection, I will show that Craig's arguments, or similar
theistic arguments, fail to support the contention that even though
the first state of God in <A HREF="#scenario6">scenario 6</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
a timeless state – assuming here that 'timeless' is meaningful
-, the first state of the universe in <A HREF="#scenario51">scenario
5 </A>would be a temporal state, and the universe would be something
that has a beginning – i.e., something that begins to exist –
but not a cause of its existence. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">More
precisely, Craig and other theist defenders of the KCA claim that the
universe began to exist, and that everything that begins to exist has
a cause of its existence, concluding that the universe has a cause of
its existence. Also, they posit God as the cause of the existence of
the universe, but deny that God began to exist, claiming that he is
timeless sans the universe. I will show that Craig and others do not
have any good reasons at all to make that distinction and claim or
imply that God is timeless sans the universe, but the first state of
the universe would be temporal <A HREF="#scenario5">in scenario 5</A>.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Given that they do
not explain what they mean by 'timeless', I will assess their claims
based on their assertions about the properties of timeless objects,
more precisely changelessness and quiescence. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="quiescence"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>7.3.1)
Quiescence and changelessness </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
<A HREF="#scenario6">scenario 6</A>, God changes from his first state
– at the first state of the world -, to his second state –
at the second state of the world. God does not remain unchanged </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>for
a while – </I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">which
would require time. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">He
changes from the first state to the next. That is </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>precisely</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">what
happens in the case of the universe <A HREF="#scenario5">in </A><A HREF="#scenario5">scenario
5</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">There
is no need to posit that there are particles in the first state of
the universe <A HREF="#scenario5">in scenario 5</A>. However, that
would make no relevant difference, either: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>If</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">we
assume for the sake of the argument that there are particles at the
first state of the universe <A HREF="#scenario5">in scenario 5</A>,
then any change in any particle is still a change in the universe
from its first to its second state. That's precisely what happens in
the case of God, who changes from his first to his second state. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It
is true that, in <A HREF="#scenario6">scenario 6</A>, there is no
change in God prior to the change from his first to his second state
– obviously -, but the same is true of the universe <A HREF="#scenario5">in
scenario 5</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
– </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">also,
clearly. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
it is not the case that God can properly be called 'changeless' at
his first state in <A HREF="#scenario6">scenario 6</A>, but the
universe can't properly be called 'changeless' at its first state <A HREF="#scenario5">in
scenario 5</A>, and it is not the case that God can properly be
called 'quiescent' at his first state in <A HREF="#scenario6">scenario
6</A>, but the universe can't properly be called 'quiescent' at its
first state in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Moreover,
while the previous reasoning in <A HREF="#quiescence">this subsection
</A>is sufficient to show that theist defenders of the KCA fail to
make a relevant distinction between <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario 5</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
<A HREF="#scenario6">scenario 6</A>, an even stronger case can be
made: namely, we can see from the previous reasoning that the proper
characterization of the first state of the universe in <A HREF="#scenario5">scenario
5</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
the first state of God in <A HREF="#scenario6">scenario 6</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
that such states are </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>not
changeless or quiescent. </B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">This
is clear from the fact that, say, the first state of God in <A HREF="#scenario6">scenario
6</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">changes
to the second one, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just
as the second state will change to the third one, and so on. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
fact that the first state is not preceded by other states is not
relevant when it comes to the fact that it changes to the second,
just as the second changes to the third, without any period of
quiescence or lack of change. So, there is no changelessness or
quiescence. But no changelessness or no quiescence entails no
timelessness, by the way in which Craig uses the word 'timeless' -
assuming, as usual, that he means something by it, which by now
appears extremely doubtful – and so the first state of God in
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
6</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">should
not be called 'timeless' at all. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Still,
leaving the stronger results aside for now, given that the first
state of the world in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
6</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
by assumption timeless, let us posit that the first state of the
world in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
timeless as well. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Then,
objections based on an alleged lack of quiescence or changelessness
of the universe fail, since there is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#quiescence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">no
difference</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
6</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
terms of quiescence or changelessness. Since there appear to be no
other objections to the timelessness of the universe at its first
state, the theistic case fails. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="causation"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>7.3.2)
Causation </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Given
the results of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#quiescence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">subsection
7.3.1)</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we may as well stop at that. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
it seems clear that what <I>caused</I> the change <I>from </I>the
first state <I>to </I>the second state in God has nothing to do with
whether the <I>first</I> state of God is a beginning of existence of
God, and the same goes for the universe. That seems clear by the
meaning of the expression 'begins to exist'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Still,
and just for the sake of the argument, I will address the matter of
causation in the rest of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#causation"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
subsection.</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="godchange"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>7.3.2.1)
God's change, causation, and the change in the universe </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
6</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
God changes from timeless to temporal </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
God's intent to change from timeless to temporal does not exist at
the first state of the world, then at the second state of the world,
God <I>found himself changed</I>. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Since
nothing else was there to cause the change, then God's change was
random. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might say that God only exercised his freedom and chose to change
only at his second state, so the change wasn't random even if God's
intent to change did not exist at the first state of the world. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
the first state of the world is <I>causally prior </I>to the second
one, so a change in that first state of the world cannot have been
caused merely by something that only existed at the second state of
the world. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Since
the first, timeless state of God obtains at the first state of the
world, the cause of the change in God from timeless to temporal must
have existed at that first state of the world, unless the change was
random and God found himself changed and temporal. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
the possibilities are that either God changed randomly and found
himself changed and temporal, or that God's intent to change existed
at the first state of the world in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
6.</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
clearly, the non-theist can match that: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
instance, if God's intent to change from timeless to temporal existed
at the first state of the world in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
6</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we may posit as an alternative scenario that sufficient conditions to
bring about a change in the universe from a first state to a second
state also existed at the first state of the world in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">To
be clear, we don't need to take a stance on whether, in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the change would be deterministic. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">We
may suggest, as a possibility, that the conditions at the first state
of the world in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">were
sufficient to bring about a specific second state of the universe
(i.e., deterministic change). </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">We
may also suggest, as an alternative possibility, that the conditions
at the first state of the world in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">were
only sufficient conditions to guarantee that one of, say, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>n
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">different
potential second states of the universe would come to obtain, but
which one of those states actually obtains is not determined by the
conditions at the first state of the world. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
is all compatible with </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so we have options. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
if a theist claims that non-determinism in the change from the first
to the second state is required for the first state to be timeless,
he would have the burden to explain why that is so.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
even if we assume that indeterminism in the change from the first to
the second state is required for the first state to be timeless, we
may still posit a timeless first state of the universe, which would
be indeterministic. In fact, there already are indeterministic
interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (QM), so why not an
indeterministic first state of the universe? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
even showing that indeterminism is required for timelessness would be
a dead end for the theist. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
said, and before I move on to the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#freewill"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">next
subsection</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
I would like to reiterate that I'm merely assuming for the sake of
the argument that defenders of the KCA mean something by 'timeless',
and applying the conditions for timelessness they suggest or might
suggest. However, there seems to be no good reason to think that
they're using the word 'timeless' meaningfully. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Furthermore,
and regardless of whether they're using 'timeless' meaningfully, it
seems apparent – just by the meaning of the words – that
whether the universe in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
God in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
6</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>begins
to exist </B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
the first state of the world has nothing to do with whether any
change from the first to the second state of the world is determined
by the conditions at the first state. In other words, the issues of
beginning of existence and non-determinism are orthogonal. Still,
even if they weren't, that would not help the theist's case, as I
explained above in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#godchange"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
subsection</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and as I will further address in the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#freewill">next
</A><A HREF="#freewill">subsection</A></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="freewill"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>7.3.2.2)
Free will, determinism and indeterminism</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
we saw in the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#godchange"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">previous
subsection</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
an indeterministic first state is not a difficulty for non-theists,
though there is no good reason to assume that if there were such a
first state, it would be non-deterministic. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">After
all, it is clear by the meaning of the words that whether the
universe in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
God in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
6</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>begins
to exist </B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
the first state of the world has nothing to do with whether any
change from the first to the second state of the world is determined
by the conditions at the first state. Any ambiguity in the concept
'begins to exist' is clearly not connected to whether the change from
the first to the second state is deterministic. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
aside, let's assume – at this point, clearly against good
reasons – that somehow in order for the universe not to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">begin
to exist</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it is required that the second state of the universe not be
determined by the conditions of the first state. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
I mentioned, there are non-deterministic interpretations of Quantum
Mechanics, so a non-theist may simply suggest, as a possibility that
defenders of the KCA have failed to refute, a non-deterministic first
state of the universe in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
according to this, given the conditions at the first state, there are
a number of potential second states, even though in the end, only one
of them came to obtain. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>An
objection that a theist might raise here would be something like the
following: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Why,
then, the universe changed to the state that it did, rather than one
of the other states? Is that random? Theists do not have that
problem, since God has free will, and can choose indeterministically
without randomness. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Actually,
free will does not entail non-determinism, and libertarianism is not
the correct understanding of free will, as I will show </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#free"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">later</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
So, this objection is based on a misunderstanding of what freedom is.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
that aside, this objection would be an objection to <I>any
</I>non-deterministic interpretations of QM, not just to a
non-deterministic first state of the world. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
matter of determinism vs. non-determinism does not appear to be
settled, and it would be up to the theist to show that
non-deterministic interpretations of QM are not true. To be clear,
suggesting that they might not be true is not enough. The theist
would need to provide enough reasons to conclude at least that
non-deterministic interpretations of QM are probably false, if he
wants to make a case against an initial non-deterministic state of
the universe. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Another
potential theistic objection might go as follows:</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Why
is it that the first state only allows for a certain number of second
states? Why not <B>anything? </B>Theists have an answer: God can
freely choose to bring about a certain universe, but he will choose
something good, because of who he is. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Even
leaving aside problems such as the Evidential Problem of Evil,
Problem of Suffering, Problem of Divine Hiddenness, etc., as direct
objections to God as a creator of our universe, a problem with the
theistic objection above is that the theist is assuming that there is
a creator <I>with a certain psychological makeup</I>. Surely, the
non-theist may as well suggest as a possibility – without even
having to commit herself to that – a first state of the
universe with certain properties that constrain the possible second
states. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="inandofthemselves"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>7.3.2.3)
Agents acting 'in and of themselves'?</B></FONT> </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Another
objection I've encountered holds that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">should
be rejected because only free agents, as far as we know, can act 'in
and of themselves', start new causal chains, act 'without being
caused to do so', etc., and the universe is not a free agent, but God
is.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">This
is not an objection to a claim that, in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the universe is timeless at its first state, but rather, it's an
objection to the possibility, or at least the plausibility of
something like </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>This
objection confuses causation with lack of freedom, and holds that an
agent whose decisions are caused by previous states of herself would
somehow not be free because it would be 'caused to act'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
way to refute this objection is to show that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#free"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">libertarian
freedom is a mistaken conception of freedom, which I will do later.</FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#inandofthemselves"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
subsection,</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">however,
I will deal with this objection on different grounds: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">First,
as explained in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#quiescence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">subsection
7.3.1)</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the proper conclusion is not that both the first state in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
6</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario51"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
5</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
timeless, but rather, that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">neither
of them is</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and that the assumption that the first state in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
6</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
timeless is false – assuming that 'timeless' is meaningful at
all. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Indeed,
all the attempts of showing changelessness or quiescence failed. That
is enough to block all present-day versions of the KCA, regardless of
any other matters. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second,
leaving that aside, theist defenders of the KCA have not refuted
non-deterministic interpretations of QM, which would include states
of affairs not determined by previous ones, without involvement of
any agent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
is true that, in all the cases we've encountered, those states of
affairs require at least some non-deterministic previous conditions,
but surely <I>the same can be said about any decisions made by any
agents we're familiar with, even if we assume that such agents are
non-deterministic. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Third,
even if we had evidence that humans are non-deterministic, we
certainly do not have any evidence of humans or any other agents
existing without any causes of their existence. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It's
true that we don't have evidence of any beings or states existing
without any previous states, either, but the point is that even in
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario
6</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the theist is positing something that has nothing to do with our
experiences of causation, or beginnings of existence. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
<I><B>if</B></I> we can nevertheless use the evidence that we do have
as a means of trying to ascertain whether a first cause would
plausibly be a personal being, we can point out the following: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
non-theist observes that, as far as she can tell, all of the causes
of us which existed two billion years ago are non-agents, and that as
far as she can tell, everything that exists can be traced back,
deterministically or not, to only non-intelligent causes. There is no
good reason for her to come to believe that if there is a first cause
at all, it's more plausible that a first cause would be intelligent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">All
that aside, as I mentioned, I will refute </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#inandofthemselves"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
'in and of themselves' objection</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on
different grounds </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#free"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">later,
when I refute the libertarian account of freedom.</FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
let's move on to other, very different objections to the KCA. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="meaningbegin"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">8)
The meaning of 'begins to exist'</SPAN></B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">First,
l</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>et's
compare </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig's
hypothesis about the meanings of 'begins to exist' and 'comes into
being'[11]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>,
with an alternative hypothesis AH1</FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>,
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>and
test the two hypothesis to see which one is closer to matching the
meaning of the words: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="AH"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>AH1</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A.
x begins to exist at [t1,t2] iff there is a finite closed interval
[t1,t2] such that x does not exist at any time prior to t1, and x
exists at t2. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">B.
x comes into being iff there is an </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">event
– </SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">that
is, change – from a state of affairs at which x does not exist,
to a state of affairs at which it does. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Here,
"x"is just as in Craig's hypothesis – i.e., it can be
any being -, and 0 ≤ t1 ≤ t2. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
for the interval [t1,t2], an interval seems to be required because
otherwise, there might be a problem in cases of vagueness: e.g.,
there may not be a specific instant t such that the Moon existed at
t, but at no u < t: the word "Moon" may be too vague for
that. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">That
also seems to be in line with common speech: when we say that
something began on a day, or a year, etc., we're considering
intervals, not instants. Even when we speak in terms of seconds, or
millisecond, we're speaking in terms of intervals, even if very short
ones. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Under
a tensed theory of time, everyday examples will not help us test one
vs. the other, since both hypotheses yield the same results. However,
under a tenseless theory of time, the difference is striking: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
assume a tenseless theory of time, and let's consider, for instance,
Napoleon. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
seems clear that, even if the past, present and future exist
tenselessly, there is a time at which Napoleon did not exist, and a
later time at which he did. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
it seems that he </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>came
into being</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>began
to exist. </I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That's
in line with hypothesis <A HREF="#AH">AH1</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
the other hand, under Craig's hypothesis, assuming a tenseless theory
of time, </SPAN></SPAN><I>nothing</I> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">begins
to exist, and nothing comes into being. In particular, Napoleon
neither came into being, nor began to exist. But that seems clearly
conceptually wrong. In fact, the questions of whether a tensed theory
is true and whether Napoleon came into being, or began to exist,
appear to be orthogonal. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It
seems rather odd that Craig would include tense in the definition of
"begins to exist", but he argues that, under a tenseless
theory of time, a universe with a first event did not begin to exist
just as a meter stick does not begin to exist just because it has a
first centimeter.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage1842"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[12]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
argument is odd as well, though: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">While
a meter stick does not </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>begin to exist</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
in virtue of having a first </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>centimeter</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">,
that's not relevant, since having a first centimeter is a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>spatial</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">,
not a </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>temporal</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
claim, while "begins to exist" - at least, in this context
– is clearly about time, not space. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">In
fact, the stick in question </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>does</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
have a </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">beginning</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>in space </I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">because
it has</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
first centimeter, and similarly, even if a tenseless theory of time
is true, the stick does have a beginning</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>in time</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">as
long as there is, say, a </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>first
year at which it exists. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It
is true that, in order for us to say a year is </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>first</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
we need to pick an order in time – from past to future, not the
other way around, but that direction is actually implicitly built-in
hypothesis 2, and in our language about time.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
to say that the stick has a spatial beginning require that one picks
a direction in space to say which centimeter is first – in this
case, explicitly or by context. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A
difference is that, in the case of space, one needs to pick the
direction explicitly or by context, whereas in the case of time, it's
built in the meaning of the words, but that does not appear to be
relevant to the point that there is a beginning. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Since
to say that the stick begins to exist – in the sense that's
relevant in the context of the KCA, at least – is the same as
to say that the stick has a temporal beginning, or a beginning in
time, then it follows that the stick does begin to exist, even on a
tenseless theory of time. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Then,
it seems to me that hypothesis </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AH"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">AH1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">gives
the right result, whereas Craig's hypothesis does not. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
consider a different scenario; scenario S1: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="S1"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Let
us suppose that there is a t=0, and an entity B that exists at t=0.
Let us suppose that there is no time earlier than t=0. Let's further
suppose that there is no state of the world at which B does not
exist, and the actual world does not contain any timeless states of
affairs whatsoever, or any kind of two-coordinates time, or
undifferentiated time, or any such temporally counterintuitive state
of affairs</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#timelessnote1"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[13]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Does
B begin to exist? <BR>Does B come into being? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">According
to Craig's hypothesis</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#meaningbegins"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[11]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
if a tensed theory is time is true, then B begins to exist and comes
into being, whereas if a tenseless theory of time is true, then B
neither begins to exist nor comes into being. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
the other hand, according to hypothesis </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AH"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">AH1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
regardless of the tensed vs. tenseless issue, B does begin to exist,
but does not come into being. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Readers
will use their own intuitive grasp of the words, of course, but mine
tells me that hypothesis </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AH"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>AH1</FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">gives
all the right results again: to </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>come
into </I></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">being
seems to entail that there is a state at which the entity in question
does not exist, followed by one in which it does, whereas to </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>begin
</I></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
exist seems to indicate an initial time or moment of existence. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
don't know whether </FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">hypothesis
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AH"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>AH1</FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>is entirely
accurate, but it does seem to be much closer to capturing the meaning
of the words than </FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Craig's
hypothesis</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[11]</FONT></FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="AH2"></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Another
alternative (say, hypothesis AH2) would be just like </FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">hypothesis
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AH"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>AH1</FONT></FONT></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>but allowing open
and semi-open finite intervals. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Hypotheses
</FONT></FONT><A HREF="#AH"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">AH1</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>and AH2 given the
same verdict in daily cases, under either a tensed or a tenseless
theory of time, but there would be a difference in, say, open models
of the universe with a metric-finite past, assuming an intrinsic
metric. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
any case, both alternatives seem to fare much better than Craig's
hypothesis, at least in all the cases tested above – in which
both hypotheses </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AH"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">AH1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">and
AH2 </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">seem
to give the right results, but Craig's does not. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
addition to that, it seems clear that, when people ordinarily says
'begin to exist', they're not making obscure claims about
timelessness – which, if coherent at all, does not seem to be a
concept that most people even grasp. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">So,
it seems clear that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Craig's
hypothesis about the meaning of 'begins to exist'</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[11]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
false. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">It's
true that Craig might simply stipulate what he means by 'begins to
exist', rather than making a claim of meaning, and someone might
suggest that Craig is doing merely that. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">That
doesn't look like that to me – though I would grant that Craig
is rather obscure -, but there is no need to get into that: Even if
Craig merely stipulated what he means by 'begins to exist', or even
if he presented a hypothesis and we assume – against good
reasons, as explained earlier in this section – that such
hypothesis </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#meaningbegins"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[11]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">is
true, his arguments fail to provide support for either </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#Introduction">the
first or the second </A><A HREF="#Introduction">premise</A></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">of
the KCA, as the following sections will show. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="firstpremise"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>9)
The first premise of the KCA </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
turn now to the question of whether there are good grounds for
believing that everything that begins to exist has a cause. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">William
Lane Craig maintains that the first premise, namely the claim that
everything that begins to exist has a cause, is intuitively clear.
Moreover, he claims that there is empirical confirmation of that. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">He
tries to back up that claim by appealing to our intuitions about
causation – what he calls "metaphysical" intuitions
-, and by bringing up scenarios that purportedly show the absurdity
of denying it, such as, say, horses popping into existence uncaused.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notepage182"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[14]</SPAN></B></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
all of those scenarios would also be a case of denying <I>other</I>
candidates to being intuitive principles, such as the principle that
every <I>event/change</I> of the form "B comes into existence"
- or, more generally, every <I>event/change – </I>has a cause. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">So,
let's consider the following alternative principle: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="AP1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent"><B>AP1</B>:
Every event (i.e., every change) has a cause of why it happens. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
other words, someone may not accept that everything that begins to
exist has a cause, while accepting that, for instance, every
<I>event/change</I> has a cause. They don't need to actually <I>deny</I>
that everything that begins has a cause, but simply not affirm it.
<BR>Actually, AP1 is also debatable, and I'm not suggesting that we
ought to accept it, but the point here is that it's an alternative
that avoids any of the issues raised by Craig, and – at least
to me – it seems more intuitive, so if we are to accept a
principle, AP1 seems good enough. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">That
would not commit us to assuming that only events/changes have causes,
of course – just as Craig does not assume that only that which
begins to exist has causes -, but that's beside the point. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
point is that this is an intuitive alternative (though still
debatable), and that n<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">one
of the scenarios that Craig brings up – like a horse coming
into existence uncaused – would present any problem for that
position, since that position holds that </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>events/changes
</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
not happen without a cause. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">On
the other hand, u</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>sing
Craig's definition of 'begins to exist'</FONT></FONT><A HREF="#meaningbegins"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[11]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>,
the issue of 'timelessness' alone is a serious problem: </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>without
a good understanding of what that even means,</I></FONT></FONT> <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>plus
good reasons to adopt it, there appears to be no justification for
believing that kind of principle that Craig proposes, even if we
assume that the claim is coherent – <A HREF="#craigobjection">which
</A></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#craigsreply"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">we
don't have sufficient reasons to believe. </FONT></A>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Q123"></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Still,
there is no need to settle the matter of what 'begins to exist' mean.
Let's consider the following definition of 'temporal beginning'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>TB</B></FONT><FONT SIZE=3>:
X has a temporal beginning if and only if: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>a)
X exists at some time t, and has existed for a finite amount of time
before t (zero counts as finite). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>b)
If 'timeless' is coherent, then there is no state of the world at
which X exists timelessly. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
consider the following questions: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Q1)
Do we have sufficient reasons for believing not only that every event
has a cause, but that everything that has a temporal beginning <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">even
when no change is involved</SPAN></SPAN><I>, </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">has
a cause? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In other words, do
we have sufficient reasons for believing that every X that has a
temporal beginning has a cause, even when there is no change from a
state of affairs at which the X in question does not exist, to a
state at which it does? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Q2)
Do we have an epistemic obligation to believe that everything that
has a temporal beginning even when no change is involved</SPAN></SPAN><I>,
</I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">has
a cause?</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Q3) Should we
believe that everything that has a temporal beginning comes from a
change/event 'X comes into existence'? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
order to assess our intuitions on the matters <A HREF="#noteintuitions">[15]
</A>of Q1 and Q2, we would need to consider unusual scenarios, such
as <A HREF="#S1">S1</A>.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I have to say that I
don't have any general intuition that, in such scenario, B would have
a cause. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In fact, in some
scenarios, my intuitions tell me otherwise: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">For
instance, in <A HREF="#S1">S1</A>, let us stipulate that B is the
universe, or a multiverse, and there is nothing else that exists. Or
let's stipulate that B is an omnipotent being, and let's stipulate
that, at t=0, there are no other beings – no timelessness
involved. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In those cases,
intuitively, I'd say that B begins to exist but may well not have a
cause. At least, I have no intuition that B would have a cause. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might protest that I'm constructing scenarios that would be
exceptions to the principle, but the scenarios in question are
counterintuitive and we shouldn't use them as a guide. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
in order to construct scenarios in which one could test whether one
has an intuition that every X that begins to exist has a cause,
independently of whether there is a change/event 'X comes into
existence', it seems to me one needs precisely <I>to separate
temporal beginnings of existence from changes/events, </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
that does </SPAN></SPAN>not happen in ordinary cases. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Otherwise,
it might be that what's intuitive to one is just the principle that
every event – that is, any <I>change – </I>has a cause,
and the correlation with a temporal beginning arises because it just
happens to be the case than, in daily life, things that have a
temporal beginning are just those things X for which there is a
change/event 'X comes into existence' - i.e., a change from a state
of affairs at which X does not exist, to one at which it does. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
i<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">n
order to accept something like 'everything that begins to exist, has
a cause' as intuitive, one would not only have to lack an intuition
that, in some scenarios, some beings that begin to exist would
probably </SPAN></SPAN><I>not </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">have
causes: one would have to have an intuition that those beings </SPAN></SPAN><I>would
</I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">plausibly
have causes. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As
for Q3, there appears to be no intuitive reason to think that that's
</SPAN></SPAN><I>always </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
case. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
fact, if time had a beginning point (which can't be ruled out on
intuitions alone), it seems more than intuitively clear that there is
no event 'time comes into existence': a change from a state of
affairs at which there is no time, to one at which there is time,
seems to be impossible, for reasons <A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">similar
to </A><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig">those used to derived a
contradiction earlier. </A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
it seems intuitions do not support an affirmative answer to <A HREF="#Q123">Q1,
Q2 or Q3</A>. <A HREF="#notereaders">[16]</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As
for empirical reasons, someone might try to use objects in daily life
as examples, and claim that everything that begins to exist, also
comes into existence, and that would allegedly support <A HREF="#Q123">Q3</A>.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
that's really empirical evidence, but simply the consequence of the
definitions, for any object not as old as the universe. <A HREF="#noteobjects">[17]</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
it seems that we're at the very least justified in not affirming that
every X that has a <A HREF="#Q123">temporal beginning</A>,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">comes
from an event 'X begins to exist', or that everything that has a
temporal beginning, has a cause. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Finally, someone
might raise the issue that cosmologists who worked on the Big Bang
model did not come to the conclusion that they had resolved all the
mysteries and moved on, instead of looking for causes. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, it's clear
that the model does <I>not </I>provide an understanding of the
universe beyond a certain point, where effects from forces other than
gravity should be taken into consideration. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In other words, it
makes perfect sense that scientists would try to figure out the
causes of a very hot, dense, and small universe that existed about
13.7 billion years: indeed, we don't know the causes; a theory that
only considers gravity but no other forces is inadequate to provide a
good understanding of it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But those scientists
seem to be asking the question: 'Where did that hot, dense, really
small universe come from?' (or similar ones), on the understanding
that <I>before</I> the first state of the universe that can be
analyzed with present-day models, there were <I>other</I> states of
the universe that are beyond the descriptive capabilities of current
scientific understanding – states that later <I>changed </I>into
a state that is within said capabilities. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
other words, they apparently were/are looking for the causes of an
<I>event/change, </I>as well as for a model of how the universe works
under conditions not covered by present-day models.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">So,
it seems that Craig's arguments fail to provide support for the
premise; at the very least, there is no epistemic obligation to
accept it – and that's <I>not even counting</I><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
issues related to indeterministic interpretations of Quantum
Mechanics. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Still,
even if we grant the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Introduction"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">first
premise</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">for
the sake of the argument, Craig's arguments do not support the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Introduction"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">second
one.</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Someone
else might come up with new arguments, but it's a heavy burden,
especially given that all arguments in support of either premise have
failed so far, and the KCA is a very old argument, which as been
debated at length. In any case, the burden would be on them, of
course. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="hotel1"></A><A NAME="hotel "></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">10)
The 'Hilbert Hotel' argument</SPAN></B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>One
of the arguments that Craig gives in support of the second premise of
the Kalam Cosmological Argument intends to establish that an actual
infinity is metaphysically impossible – though there is no
claim of logical impossibility. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
assess Craig's argument: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig and J.P Sinclair<A HREF="#hotelquote1">[18]</A>:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and
suppose once more that all the rooms are occupied. There is not a
single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose
a new guest shows up, asking for a room. “But of course!”
says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1
into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room
#3 into room #4, and so on out to infinity. As a result of these room
changes, room #1 now becomes vacant, and the new guest gratefully
checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were
occupied! Equally curious, there are now no more persons in the hotel
than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this
be? The proprietor just added the new guest’s name to the
register and gave him his keys – how can there not be one more
person in the hotel than before?</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Such questions are
the result of an ambiguity about what it means for there to be “more
persons” in the hotel. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
instance, if by “more persons” one means “all the
persons who were there remain, and there is at least one who wasn't
there, but now is there”, or if one means that the set of
guests after the new arrival (let's call it “</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>GF1</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>”<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">)
minus the set of guests before the new arrival (let's call it “</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>GI</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>”<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">),
has a greater cardinality than </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>GI</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">minus
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>GF1</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B><A HREF="#minusset">[19]</A>,
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">then
are are more persons (more precisely, one more) after the new guest
checks in. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, the set of guests in the beginning </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>GI</B></SPAN></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
the same cardinality as the set of guests after a new guest arrives,
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>GF1</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so if by "</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>GF1
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
more persons than </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>GI</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">"
one means that the cardinality of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>GF1
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
greater than that of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>G1</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then there are no more persons after the arrival. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
the sets have the same cardinality only means that there is a
bijection between the two sets, which is not only not
counterintuitive, but is actually </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">obvious</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it's
the same as comparing the set of natural numbers </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(i.e.,
{1, 2, 3, …}), with the set of non-negative integers </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>0
</B></SPAN></SUB></SPAN>(i.e., {0, 1, 2, 3,...}). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
in the usual mathematical sense of cardinality, <B>N</B> and <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>0</B></SPAN></SUB></SPAN>
have the same number of elements, but that only means there is a
bijection between the two (which is, again, obvious, since we can
define F: <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>0
</B></SPAN></SUB></SPAN>→ <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
F(k) = (k+1)). </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, there is one number in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>0
</B></SPAN></SUB></SPAN>that is not in <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(namely,
0), so in that sense, there is one more element – also, the
cardinality of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>0
</B></SPAN></SUB></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">minus</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
1, which is greater than the cardinality of </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">minus
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>0</B></SPAN></SUB></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
which is zero. So, understanding “more elements” in
either of those senses, it is the case that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>0
</B></SPAN></SUB></SPAN>has more elements than <B>N</B> (one more, to
be precise). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The case of the
hotel is no different in that regard; making the example concrete
does not change the fact that any puzzlement arises from the
ambiguity about what's meant by “same number”: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
the same sense of “same number” in which </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>0
</B></SPAN></SUB></SPAN>has the same number of elements as <B>N –
</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">namely, in the sense that there
is a bijection between the two-, the sets of guests after and before
the arrival have the same number of guests. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">And
in the two senses I mentioned above in which </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>N</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>0
</B></SPAN></SUB></SPAN>has one more element than <B>N</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
is one more guest after the new guest arrived. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
the example shows something counterintuitive, that's not the actual
infinity, but the infinite </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hotel
– </SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">which
of course we could never build – the practical impossibility of
communicating with infinitely many people at once, etc. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But that does not
appear to be a problem for, say, infinitely many galaxies, or
infinitely many universes (in some sense of “universe”
used in modern cosmology), infinitely many particles, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, if one explains
what one means by "more", then there is no problem
whatsoever, regardless of whether there is a unique usual meaning of
"more", according to which there are (or there aren't) more
persons after the arrival. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I actually doubt
that only one common meaning of "more" exists, but that is
beside the point. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The point is that
there simply appears to be nothing remotely puzzling here, but merely
a confusion that arises from some ambiguity in what is meant by
"more". </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The rest of the
arguments against an actual infinity are based on that ambiguity as
well. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
instance, Craig expresses some sort of amazement at the alleged
strangeness that even if (denumerably) </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">infinitely
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">many
more guests arrive, the number of guests is the same as before.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#hotelquote1"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[18]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
in the previous case, there is no puzzlement at all if what's meant
be "same number" is explained: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
set of guests after the infinitely many (more precisely, <FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><B>0</B></SUB></FONT>)
new guests arrive (let's call it <B>GF</B><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><B>0)</B></SUB></FONT>
has all the members of the initial set of guests <B>GI</B>, and it
also has infinitely many guests that <B>GI</B> does not have. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
<B>GF</B><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><B>0
</B></SUB></FONT>minus <B>GI</B> has infinitely many guests or
members, whereas <B>GI</B> minus <B>GF</B><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><B>0
</B></SUB></FONT>has zero. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
the other hand, there is a bijection between <B>GI</B> and <B>GF</B><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><B>0</B></SUB></FONT>.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>All
that is clear, and there is no puzzlement. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
question "Are there any more guests?" is not be problematic
once one explains what's meant by "more guests". </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
would be somewhat ambiguous to say that there would never be a single
person more in the hotel than before, as Craig does</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#hotelquote1"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[18]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but as before, once one clarifies what one is saying, the puzzlement
should disappear: in the usual mathematical sense of cardinality,
there are no more persons, which is to say nothing but that there is
a bijection between the set of guests before the new infinite ones
arrive, and the set of guests after they do arrive. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In the two other
senses I mentioned above, there are more people after the arrival. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">All
of this is straightforward, so there should be no need to delve any
further into it: Craig's </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>"Hilbert Hotel"
argument provides no good reason to reach any conclusion about
whether actual infinities exist, or whether or not they're
"metaphysically possible", since it is just the result of
terminological ambiguity and the resulting confusion. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="philosiphicalinfinity"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>11)
Philosophical arguments against an infinite past</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
addition to the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#hotel"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hilbert
Hotel argument</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">against
an actual infinity, Craig presents other philosophical arguments
against an infinite past on a tensed theory of time – </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
against all actual infinities. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Before
I go on, I have to admit that an infinite past on a tensed theory of
time appears counterintuitive to me. However, on the other hand, so
does a beginning of time! </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
aside, the question is whether there are enough reasons that would
settle the matter in the sense that, on a tensed theory of time, an
infinite past is indeed impossible. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
used to think that there were – though not for the same reasons
as Craig -, but after further consideration, reading
counterarguments, and so on, I have to admit I can't find such
reasons. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
be clear, on a tensed theory of time, there is no infinite ordered
chain of events, one after the other, with a beginning point, since
it's impossible to reach an infinity by a finite number of instances
of finite addition. Moreover, that is true regardless of whether the
events are of equal duration – assuming an intrinsic metric of
time; else, how close they are is a conventional matter -, or even
whether the past is metric-finite. Indeed, even if the lengths of the
events added up to a finite number, the fact is that it's not
possible to reach an actual infinity by finitely many times adding
something finite. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
the real question is whether a <I>beginningless</I> series of ordered
past events, one after the other, is possible, under a tensed theory
of time. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Craig
maintains that that is impossible, pointing to the objectivity of
temporal becoming under a tensed theory of time, and presenting some
arguments that allegedly would result in contradiction. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="equalduration"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
will consider the arguments that purportedly show some absurdities in
a moment, but before that, I'd like to point out that if the
objectivity of temporal becoming on a tensed theory of time precluded
an infinite past, it would also preclude a metric-finite past but
with infinitely many past events/changes. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
that note, when Craig replies to the objection that some of his
arguments resembles Zeno's paradoxes.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#notezeno">[20]</A>,
he maintains that there are </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">two
crucial differences: the events are of equal duration and actual in
his argument whereas the intervals are potential and unequal in
Zeno's paradoxes. <BR>However, at least the equal or unequal duration
of the intervals is not a relevant difference, as long as each of
them involves actual events/changes, since in any case, there would
be infinitely many instances of temporal becoming in the past,
regardless of whether they're all temporally equidistant from each
other. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
the question remains: does the objectivity of temporal becoming
precludes the existence of infinitely many instances of temporal
becoming in the past, one after the other? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Actually,
it seems that what would be ruled out is the existence of such
instances with a beginning point. In other words, what would be ruled
out is a first temporal</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">state
T(0) without any changes within it, followed by the next such state
T(1), and so on, until reaching a time T(</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">ℵ</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">0</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">).
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
if there is no beginning point, between any two events there would be
only finitely many ones, so there would be no infinity to be reached
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
any point</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
So, there is no contradiction, only counterintuitiveness. However, a
past with a beginning point is also counterintuitive. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
modern physics has taught us that while our intuitions about time are
good enough in daily life, we should be wary about extrapolating them
to the whole universe (or even some parts of it, like, say, a
galaxy). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
it seems that on intuitions alone, the matter can't be settled. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let
us now consider Craig's arguments that purportedly show some
absurdities in the case of an infinite past without a beginning. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Shandy"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>11.1)
The contradictory case of Tristram Shandy</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">One
of Craig's arguments against an infinite past is based on the story
of Tristram Shandy. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#noteshandy1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[21]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Shandy
is a man who writes his autobiography, at a rather slow pace: it
takes Shandy a year to write the events of a single day. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>According
to Craig, if Shandy had been writing from infinity, that would lead
to absurdities, and so – as Craig argument goes – we
should reject an infinite past because it's obviously coherent to
write an autobiography at that pace. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
Craig does not provide any good reason to believe that it's obviously
coherent – or, indeed, coherent – to write an
autobiography at that rate </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">counting
from infinity. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">What
is obviously coherent is to write such an autobiography </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">starting
at a specific day. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
there is a good reason why Craig does not provide any good reasons to
believe that it's coherent to write an autobiography at that rate
while having kept that pace 'from infinity': namely, such a deed is
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">logically
impossible. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">To
see why this is impossible, let's suppose otherwise, let's suppose
the number of past years has the order type of the non-positive
integers, and let's enumerate the past years in the following way:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#noteleap"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[22]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Last
year is 0, the previous year is -1, and so on. For instance, if this
year is 2012, then 2011 is 0, 2010 is -1, 2009 is -2, and so on. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
let F be a function from the set of non-positive integers into itself
such that for all non-negative integers </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>r</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>n</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
F(</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>-r) = -n </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
and only if -</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>n</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is the
most recent year Shandy wrote about during the year -</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>r</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, if, in the year -2000, Shandy wrote about a day in the year
-300001 and about a day in the year -300000, then F(-2000) = -300000.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Given
the rate at which Shandy writes, and given also that, when writing
his autobiography, Shandy never writes about his future, we have the
following conditions: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>1)
F(-r) ≤ -r. </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>2)
F(-r-365) = F(-r) - 1. </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>By
induction: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>3)
F(-r-2*365) = F(-r-365-365) = F(-r-365) - 1=F(-r) - 2</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>4)
F(-r-k*365) = F(-r) - k, </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
all non-negative </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>k</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
in particular, taking </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>r=0. </B></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>F(-k*365)
= F(0) - k ≤ -k*365. </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000">Hence,
for every natural number </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>k</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">,
</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>5)
364*k </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">≤ </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>-F(0)</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000">That's
contradictory, as easily seen by taking (for instance) </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>k
= 1 + (F(0)*F(0)). </B></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
the Tristram Shandy scenario fails to show that infinitely many past
years are impossible. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might suggest that precisely the fact that we reach a contradiction
is what should lead us to the rejection of such an infinite past.
However, that would be a confusion, as it should be clear from the
previous proof: what's logically impossible is the scenario itself,
and it's not surprising that absurdities follow from a contradiction,
since <I>everything</I> follows from a contradiction. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Surprisingly,
Craig actually acknowledges that the scenario is contradictory, yet
claims that <I>because </I>it's "obviously" coherent to
write one's autobiography at a rate of one day per year, the problem
is with the infinity of the past. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
have to confess that I find that reply puzzling. Clearly, the task of
writing one's autobiography at a rate of one day per year <I>from
infinity </I>is logically impossible. I honestly do not understand
what else is needed to reject the argument. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Incidentally,
there is a contradictory scenario about the future that strikes me as
similar to the 'Tristram Shandy' scenario: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="aliceshandy"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Alice
Shandy writes a novel, and the story is set in her future. She always
writes about future days. Also, it takes Alice a year to account for
what happens in one day in her novel, and she always writes her novel
in sequence. In other words, she writes about what happens on some
day d</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SUB>1</SUB></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
and after she finishes writing about d</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SUB>1</SUB></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
she moves to the day after d</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SUB>1</SUB></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
without jumping to any later day. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Also,
for any number n, Alice spends more than n years writing her novel. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
'Alice Shandy' scenario is contradictory, but that does not warrant a
conclusion that an unbounded future is metaphysically impossible. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might insist that the task of writing a novel about the future,
writing about consecutive days at a rate of one day per year, is
obviously coherent, and so the fault must be with the idea of a
potentially infinite future, but it seems apparent to me that such a
reply would be very mistaken.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
'Tristram Shandy' scenario strikes me as similar, but in any case,
that's only a curiosity. I would say that should in any case reject
the 'Tristram Shandy' scenario because it's contradictory, and so the
fact that it results in absurdities does not tell us anything about
whether an infinite past with the order type of the negative integers
is metaphysically possible. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000">Still,
while the proof above </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>should be
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">enough to debunk the Tristram Shandy
scenario, in case someone is not persuaded by it, let me point out
that the proof in question does not depend on whether a tensed or a
tenseless theory of time is true. But an infinite past seems clearly
logically possible if we assume a tenseless theory of time, just as
an infinite future is. </FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000">Also,
somebody might suggest that there might be even </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>more
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">past years, changing order types,
etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
that would be beside the point: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000">The
point here is that the previous proof shows that if the set of past
years is of the same order type as the set of non-negative integers,
the Tristram Shandy case is </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>logically
impossible. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Therefore,
the Tristram Shandy scenario fails to present any challenge to the
possibility of an infinite past in which the set of past years has
the same order type as the set of non-negative integers, and so it
fails to show that infinitely many past years are impossible. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="orbits"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>11.2)
Orbits and parity</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Another
one of Craig's arguments against an infinite past on a tensed theory
of time is based on a scenario involving planets completing
infinitely many orbits. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">First,
he claims that somehow it's absurd that if Jupiter completes 2.5
orbits for each one Saturn completes, they would both have completed
the same number, if they have been orbiting the Sun 'from eternity
past'. That would be somehow a "magical" result</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notepage120"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[23]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
apart from the fact that any planet, star, etc., has a finite
expiration date, the fact is that there is no absurdity at all. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
in the case of the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#hotel"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hilbert
Hotel argument</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
this is merely a confusion with words. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
the number of orbits is the same if they've been orbiting forever and
there is an infinite past merely means that there is a bijection
between the set of orbits completed by one of the planets, and the
same set for the other planet. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Of
course, again in reality </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">planets
</SPAN></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">don't
last for that long, but that is not at all relevant. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Indeed,
no one is suggesting that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">planets</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">might
do that: we know enough about physics to tell otherwise. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Incidentally,
in any case, the number of orbits completed </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
any given time </SPAN></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
be finite, and there would be nothing like Jupiter falling
"infinitely far behind Saturn", or that the "disparity"
has become increasingly greater </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">from
infinite</SPAN></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
etc.: again, there is no beginning from which to count to infinity. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notepage120"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[23]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
a cardinal number </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
even if there is a unique cardinal number </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">m
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
that </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">=
2</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">m</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
odd if there is a unique cardinal number </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">m
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
that </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">=
2</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">m
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">+
1. In the envisioned scenario, the number of completed orbits is (in
both cases!) ℵ0, and ℵ0 = 2ℵ0 = 2ℵ0 +
1.</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Actually,
using usual mathematical definitions of “even” and “odd”
– and those definitions match common usage of the words -,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">integers</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
even or odd, but not transfinite cardinals.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">So,
using the words in their usual sense, ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><B>0</B></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB>
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">is neither odd nor even. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
that </FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>0</B></FONT></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB>
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>=
2</FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>0</B></FONT></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB>
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>+
1 only means that there is a bijection between </FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>0</B></FONT></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB>
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>and
(</FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>0</B></FONT></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB>
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>x
{0, 1} </FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>U</B></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>{1}),
and that </FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>0</B></FONT></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB>
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>=
2</FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>0</B></FONT></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB>
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>only
means that if there is a bijection between </FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>0</B></FONT></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB>
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>and
(</FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>0</B></FONT></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB>
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>x
{0, 1}). But that's all true </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notecardinal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[24].
</FONT></A>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>Surely,
going by the definition Craig provides, </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ℵ</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB><FONT SIZE=3><B>0</B></FONT></SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SUB>
</SUB></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>would be both odd and
even, and so would be any other transfinite cardinal, but that is not
at all a problem</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>,
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">as
long as one keeps in mind what Craig means by the words. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="shbbm"></A><A NAME="Appendix4"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">12)
The "Standard Hot Big Bang Model", a tensed theory of time,
and the KCA: </SPAN></B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Back to Craig's
argument, he claims that what he calls the "Standard Hot Big
Bang Model" (SHBBM), supports the second premise of the KCA. He
also claims that a tensed theory of time is true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>W.
L. Craig and J. P. Sinclair<A HREF="#standardbigbangnote">[25]</A></B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
standard Hot Big Bang model, as the Friedmann–Lemaître
model came to be called</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><B>, t</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">hus
describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came
into being a finite time ago. Moreover – and this deserves
underscoring – the origin it posits is an absolute origin </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>ex
nihilo</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">. For not only all matter and
energy but also space and time themselves come into being at the
initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, “At
this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally
nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe
originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>ex
nihilo</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">” (Barrow and Tipler
1986, p. 442). On such a model the universe originates </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>ex
nihilo </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">in the sense that it is false
that something existed prior to the singularity</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>.</I></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">There
is no good reason to think that we can assume the model to be an
accurate description of the universe beyond a point at which there
was a hot, dense and very small universe – but </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>not
– </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">a singularity of infinite
density (what would that even mean?). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
there is no need to add a singular point, even if one keeps
extrapolating backwards in time, nor a way of getting out of the
singularity, so to speak. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
let's let all that pass, and let's assume, for the sake of the
argument, that the model Craig offers in support of his arguments is
indeed an accurate portrayal of the early universe. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Then,
under such assumption: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>1)
There is a time t(1) in the past, such that the average density d(1)
of the universe at t(1) was greater than the density at a time in the
year 2000 (any time) d(0), so there is a change from a universe with
a density d(1) to a universe with a density d(0). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Thus,
the model entails that there is at least one event/change, E(1),
which happens in semiopen interval [t(1), t(0))</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>2)
Let's suppose the model entails there are at least k events, E(1),
E(2), E(k), where E(j) happens in the semi-open interval [t(j+1),
t(j)), and 0 < t(j+1) < t(j), for all j between 1 and k. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
average density of the universe from E(k+1) began to the present day,
is bounded, and so is less than some number d(M). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Since
the model predicts that the density <I>tends</I> to infinity as we
move back in time, there is some time t(k+2), such that 0 < t(k+2)
< t(k+1), and such that d((k+2)) > d(M). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
there is a change from a state of the universe with density d((k+2)
to a state of density d, such that d(M) > d > d(k+1), and
that's the event E((k+1)), which happens in the interval [t(k+2),
t(k+1))</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Thus,
on this model, there is an infinite temporal regress of events<I>,
</I>which Craig claims is impossible<I>.</I> </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Note
that even if the events are increasingly shorter, that would be an
actual infinity under a tenseless theory of time, or under a
growing-block tensed theory. <BR>Craig claims that even on
presentism, an infinite regress of events/changes is an actual
infinity. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
so, then Craig's "Hilbert Hotel" argument has a false
conclusion.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Furthermore,
according to Craig, this model entails that time has a beginning at
the singularity. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
so, we could then conclude, on the assumption of this model, that the
universe contains an infinite regress of events with a beginning
point, and so no tensed theory of time is true: even though the
duration of the events is not equal, and even though the sum of all
of the durations is convergent, the fact remains that it's not
possible to reach an actual infinity of events by finitely many times
adding a finite number of them, starting with only a finite number
(in reality, the model offers no way out of this "singularity",
and adding it is at best superfluous; without that addition, what we
get is a beginningless series of past events/changes, but that's no
better for Craig's position). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
what if we drop the assumption that we can extrapolate arbitrarily
back in time, and actually take into consideration the fact that
we're not justified in applying General Relativity to a very small
universe, where forces other than gravity should be taken into
consideration? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
that case, all we could say is that the universe was in a hot, small,
dense state S1 at some time t over 13 billion years ago, which seems
to have came <I>after </I>a state S2 whose description is beyond
present-day understanding of physics.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
the state S2, and the <I>event </I>E(S2,S1): = "The universe
changes from its condition at S2 to its condition at S1" are
both beyond the present-day understanding of physics. And <I><B>that
is it</B></I><B>: </B>There is no suggestion of a beginning of time,
or of the universe, or anything of the sort. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">There
is a beginning <I>of</I> <I>the states of the universe whose
description is within the present-day understanding of physics. </I>Of
course, that fact provides no support whatsoever for the second
premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and thus neither does the
"Standard Hot Big Bang Model". </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">The
same is true of modern cosmology in general: there is no claim that
there is a beginning of time; models with a metric-finite past only
call for new physics to describe things that are beyond present-day
understanding, but that is all. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">So,
science does not provide support for the KCA. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="tenselessKCA"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">13)
The KCA and a tenseless theory of time</SPAN></B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Craig's
KCA is entirely based on a tensed theory of time, but to be thorough,
I will consider in this section whether it could work on a tenseless
theory. <BR>On a tenseless theory, and going by Craig's understanding
of "begins to exist", then the second premise of the KCA is
not true. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">As
a matter of fact, on a tenseless theory of time, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">nothing</SPAN></SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">begins
to exist in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#beginsdefinition">the
sense of "begins to </A><A HREF="#beginsdefinition">exist"
proposed by Craig</A></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
since there are no tensed facts. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
his understanding of 'begins to exist' </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#meaningbegin"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">does
not seem to match common usage</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
so someone might reject it and still try to make the KCA work. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Yet,
there are insurmountable problems for that task: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">First,
as </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#hotel"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">earlier</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#philosiphicalinfinity"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">sections</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">show,
Craig's philosophical arguments against an infinite past fail even
under a tensed theory. That does not change on a tenseless theory.
<BR>Second, while a theist might try alternative arguments, that
might also be said of a KCA run on a tensed theory; in any case, the
burden would be on the claimant, but the KCA has been discussed for
many years, and it's hard to see what kind of new argument might
work, after every argument so far failed. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Third,
arguing against an infinite past on a tenseless theory has very
counterintuitive results, and even though our intuitions might not be
reliable, usually KCA defenders try to appeal to intuitions, so
counterintuitiveness is at least a problem. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">For
instance, on </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000">a
tenseless theory of time, it appears that the past, the present and
the future are ontologically equivalent. So, it seems then that any
successful argument for the metaphysical (or logical) necessity of a
beginning of time could be adapted to be an argument for the
metaphysical (or logical) necessity of an </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>end
of time</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">. At least, that is very
counterintuitive,</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Perhaps,
an alternative would be for a theist to argue for the claim that even
if a beginning of time may not be logically or metaphysically
necessary, it is at least factual. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
that kind of argument would have to be empirical, and there is no
support in present-day cosmology for such a claim: even if a
scientific model posited no infinite regress of events the universe
</SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">in a very narrow
sense of the word "universe"</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">,
they would probably make no claim about an entire series of past
events, which might comprise an older universe, multiverse, etc. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
any event, there seems to be no good reason to </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">assume
</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">such impossibility. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">So,
for all of the reasons given earlier in this section, it seems that a
KCA run on a tenseless theory of time would fail as well. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="assumingcause"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>14)
The (purported) a cause of the universe: further analysis</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Given
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#firstpremsie"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">there
seems to be no sufficient reason to accept the first premise of the
KCA</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then it seems the argument failed. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Still,
assuming that the universe had a beginning and a cause, earlier in
this article, I've analyzed some of the consequences of the
properties assigned by William Lane Craig to the cause of the
universe, showing that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
contradiction is entailed</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
also assessed </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#craigsreply"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Craig's
reply to that contention</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
showing that it's inadequate. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
this section, though, I will assess mostly other arguments in which
Craig uses conceptual analysis in order to support of some of the
claims about the properties of the cause of the universe, whose
existence is allegedly established by Kalam Cosmological Argument.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#noteconceptual"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[26]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">
</FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="firstcause"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>14.1)
A single first cause? </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Before
addressing the conceptual claims, I will assess a different one: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>According
to Craig, the philosophical arguments in in the KCA show that there
is a first cause, not only a cause of the universe. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
addition, he claims we ought to posit a single cause, not many,
allegedly due to Occam's razor. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage192"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[9]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Even
assuming that the KCA succeeded in establishing both a cause of the
universe and a first cause, that would not be a proper use of the
razor: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First,
if we do not know what caused a hot, dense state of the universe that
existed about 13.7 billion years ago, there is no warrant for
believing that it had a single cause, or that that particular cause
was in turn uncaused. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Cosmologists
understand that, and keep trying to find better models – models
that can describe the early universe as well -, rather than assuming
that the hot, dense, early universe was just brought up by a single
uncaused cause, so science can go on. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second,
even if we knew that something caused the universe, multiverse, etc.
- i.e., that there is a previous cause that does not match, for some
reason, any description used by physics, today or in the future -,
and even if we knew that there is some uncaused cause, there would
appear to be no reason to make any assumptions about the number of
causes of the universe/multiverse, etc., or that said cause or causes
are uncaused. Who knows? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Still,
let's leave that aside for the sake of the argument, and assess the
rest of Craig's arguments for the properties of the cause of the
universe, assuming that said cause would also be the first cause. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="changelessness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>14.2)
Changelessness and immateriality </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
maintains that the first cause must be "changeless", since
an infinite regress of changes cannot exist. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage192"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[9]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
from no infinite regress of changes one can only infer from that is
that there has to be a first change, not a 'changeless' state, unless
'changeless' only means a first state with no previous changes. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However
– assuming for now that Craig's claim of changelessness is
meaningful -, Craig seems to mean a lot more than the lack of
previous changes by "changeless", since he claims that the
first cause exists in a state of "absolute changelessness",
which </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage192"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[9]</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
which is allegedly impossible for particles and the like. So, it
seems that he's not only claiming that there was a first
change/event. But if he's claiming something else, then it seems
changelessness does not follow from a lack of infinitely many past
changes. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
any case, I've </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#quiescence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">already</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">showed
that a first state of God wouldn't be changeless, and if we assumed
it is, the same would be true of a similar first state of the
universe. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
addition, Craig claims that, since the first cause is changeless, the
first cause is also immaterial. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
that's another mistake, since the first cause proposed by Craig</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#quiescence">
</A><A HREF="#quiescence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">changes
just as the universe does</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
in a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario6"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">similar</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#scenario51"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">scenario</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Leaving
aside potential problems with the concept of "immaterial",
clearly the conclusion is not warranted, as the claim that the cause
is changeless is not warranted, either. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="timelessnessa"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>14.3)
Timelessness and the open interval variant</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">earlier</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><A HREF="#craigsreply"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">sections,</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#contradiction"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">already</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><A HREF="#timelesschange"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">made</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#noontologicaldifference"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">detailed</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#noontologicaldifference2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">case</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">against
the claim of timelessness of God as the first cause. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
this subsection, I will consider an alternative: someone might accept
infinitely many past events/changes without a beginning point, and
then still claim that God is temporal with creation – on a
tensed theory of time -, and timeless without it. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That's
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#openinterval"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">incompatible
with Craig's position</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but someone else might raise that issue. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
that would be of no help for the defender of the KCA: not only do the
arguments in support of the premises fail </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#firstpremsie"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">just</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><A HREF="#hotel"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">as</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><A HREF="#philosiphicalinfinity"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">before</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but if the proponent of the KCA accepts infinitely many past
events/changes, then they ought to accept the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">possibility</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
infinitely many past </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">years</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
since the difference in duration of the events/changes, and whether
they are equally long, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#equalduration"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">are
not relevant matters from the perspective of whether a tensed theory
of time allows such infinite regress</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
the possibility of infinitely many past years defeats the KCA, as one
might simply posit that, perhaps, there is an infinitely old universe
or multiverse, before the states of the universe describable by
present-day physics</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>14.4)
Spacelessness</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="spacelessness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
property of spacelessness allegedly follows from timelessness and
immateriality. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Since
I already showed that the claim of timelessness fails, that is
sufficient to show that the claim of spacelessness fails as well,
since it's unwarranted. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
let's leave that aside for the moment and for the sake of the
argument, and let's also assume that the timelessness claim makes
sense. Then, why can't, say, a multidimensional manifold be timeless?
Why not some sort of field? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">There
is no need for particles, for instance. <BR>Note that it wouldn't
help to say that any field would "</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">immediately"
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">change</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">make
particles, etc., since with the same criterion, any "timeless"
object also "immediately" changes, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#noontologicaldifference">as
the previous</A> <A HREF="#noontologicaldifference2">arguments</A>
<A HREF="#noontologicaldifference2">show</A>. </FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>And
if a field or something like that can be "timeless", but
can't be immaterial, then timelessness does not entail immateriality,
anyway. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
the claim of spacelessness only adds more problems to the
insurmountable problems an argument for theism based on the KCA
already has. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="power"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>14.5)
Power</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">According
to Craig, the first cause must be very powerful, since it caused all
of "physical reality" to exist, without any material cause.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage192"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[9]</FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Leaving
aside issues about the concepts of "material", and
"physical", and of course the decisive objections I
explained earlier, the claim that the object in question is very
powerful does not follow from that. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, given the assumption that some entity is the cause of
the universe, it might be – purely for example – that the
object in question is only capable of causing things like our
universe or similar ones, and is incapable of acting within them, or
making much of anything else, etc. There are plenty of options. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
it might as well be incapable of changing at all, so it wouldn't be
able to learn anything at all. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="personhood"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>14.6)
Personhood </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Craig
gives three arguments in support of the claim that the first cause is
personal: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="personalvsscientific"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>14.6.1)
Personal explanations and scientific explanations</B></FONT> </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
claims that, as Swinburne "points out", there are two kinds
of explanations: personal and scientific. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage192"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[9]</FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Of
course, Swinburne <I>argues </I>for that, but the matter is surely
contentious. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Craig
does not defend the distinction, and it would be beyond the scope of
this article to show all that's wrong with Swinburne's claim, but I
will point out that a personal agent acting on some volition can also
be put in terms of a law and some conditions. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance: "If agent A decides X, then X happens", and
"Agent A decides X" would be a way of putting it in such
terms. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
an agent with a "timeless" volition is posited as a cause
of the universe that is temporal with the universe, and one assumes –
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AcontradictioninCraig"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">against</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><A HREF="#contradiction"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">very</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#timelesschange">strong</A>
<A HREF="#noontologicaldifference2">reasons</A> – </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
the claim is coherent, then one might as well posit some non-personal
timeless stuff, with the property that it causes –
deterministically or not – the universe. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">There
would be initial conditions too, but – one could say, mirroring
the theist's claims – not initial in a temporal sense, but in
the (mysterious) "timeless" sense in which Craig's deity
would be timeless, and whose coherence I'm assuming in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#personalvsscientific"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
subsection</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
merely for the sake of the argument. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="otherproperties"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>14.6.2)
Other properties of the alleged first cause</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
maintains that, is based on his previous conclusions, the first cause
is timeless, immaterial, beginningless, uncaused, and spaceless. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage193"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[27]</FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
as I've shown in the previous sections of this article, those
previous 'conclusions' are <I>at best</I> unwarranted, when not
clearly untrue, so this claim fails as well. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="free"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>14.6.3)
'Free agency'</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
third avenue Craig takes, in order to support the claim that the
first cause is personal, is based on what he calls "free
agency", and "agent causation". </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage193"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[27]</FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>While
I have no objections to the claim that, say, humans sometimes act on
their own free will, that does not have anything to do with
non-determinism; further, the kind of "freedom" posited by
Craig should not be characterized as "freedom", but more
properly <I>randomness, </I>and randomness surely does not require
agency, or even minds. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
let's take a look at the matter in more detail: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">First,
Craig claims that because the agent is free, he can bring about
things in absence of previously conditions determining it. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage193"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[27]</FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
clearly is not a good characterization of human freedom, and while
Craig is talking about God, he's using an understanding of freedom
allegedly based on human freedom. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Yet,
indeterminism in humans has nothing to do with freedom in humans –
or rather, it might get in the way. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
see that, let's <FONT COLOR="#222222">consider the following
scenario: </FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alice
has been a good police officer for ten years.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>She's
kind, committed her job, good to her children, and so on.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
one morning, Alice goes to work as usual. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
police get a call about a domestic disturbance, and Alice and another
officer are sent to the address they're given.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>When
they arrive there, they encounter Harry, a thirteen-year old kid high
on drugs, acting completely irrationally. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>He
tells Alice: 'You're a police officer, so you're evil. Why don't you
shoot me?'</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alice
has no reason at all to shoot Harry. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>He
poses no threat to her, and can be easily arrested if needed. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
it's clear that she has the <I>power </I>to shoot him, and
is <I>free</I> to choose whether to shoot him. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>All
she'd have to do is pull her gun, point it at Harry, and shoot. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>No
one would see that coming, so no one could stop her if she did that –
no human, anyway; the point is that she wouldn't be stopped. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
Alice – of course – feels no inclination whatsoever to
shoot Harry, does not shoot him, and follows procedure.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">The
point is that saying that Alice </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>can
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">shoot Harry, that she
has the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>power </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">to
shoot him, that she is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>free</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
to choose whether to shoot him, etc., means that she would shoot him
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>if she chose to do so,
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">that she's not being
coerced, etc.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">It
does </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>not at all </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">mean
that, even given Alice's mental state at the time she chose to
follow procedure, and even given </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>all</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
the conditions of the world at that time and previous times –
including Alice's goals, beliefs, character, etc. -, it was still
possible that Alice would shoot Harry.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
the contrary, if, given all those previous states, it was possible
that Alice shot Harry, then it seems that there is a possible world W
with the exact same past as ours prior to Alice's decision to follow
procedure, at which Alice shot Harry instead. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">But
that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>is not an
exercise of freedom, in the usual sense of the words. Rather, it's an
unfortunate event that happens to Alice. </I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
see this, let's consider Alice's mental processes leading to her
'decision' to shoot Alice – say, decision D. Alice never
considered shooting her, and had no desire, intention, etc., before
decision D happened.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
at some time, earlier states of the world, including her earlier
mental processes did not determine her later mental processes. There
is an event "Alice decides to shoot Harry" that happens
irrespective of any previous states of Alice's mind, and no matter
how much Alice would loath being a murderer.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>All
of Alice's previous reasoning, desires, behavior, intentions, etc.,
are incapable to stop 'decision' D from happening. But how's
that Alice's decision?</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">It
seems D is not a decision Alice made, but rather, it's something that
happened </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>to </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Alice.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It's
not something Alice could have anticipated, or prevented: at some
point her mental processes changed from normal to 'shoot Harry',
without forewarning, and without any cause in previous mental
processes.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Someone
might claim that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>necessarily</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
there is always </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>some </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">hidden
reason to shoot people, or to do </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>anything </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">one
can do, but that would have to be argued for, and even then, that
would not change the fact that, in that case, Alice could not have
prevented his mental processes from changing at some point from
normal to 'shoot Harry', no matter what she did before – and
that change could not be reasonably said to be </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>her </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">decision,
since she had never considered that before, and the change took her
by surprise.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Those
considerations show that that kind of thing should not be called
'freedom', but more like 'an unfortunate kind of randomness'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
does not mean that human non-determinism isn't true. But that is
surely not required for freedom, and in fact, it might undermine it,
as the previous scenario shows. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Perhaps</I>,
there are situations after which, after assessing the pros and cons,
a human is undecided between A or ¬A; if so, maybe there is a
truly random outcome generator for such cases (which might involve
also several mutually exclusive options: A1, A2, A3,...)</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
if that is the case, that is not required for free will: a random
generator that delivers 'decisions' in cases in which the mind
remains undecided clearly does not result in more freedom than a mind
that actually makes decisions. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So,
if there is such indeterminism, as long as the indeterministic events
happen when a person is undecided (based on her previous feelings,
desires, reasoning, etc., she is undecided and does not cause any
outcome), </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>maybe </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">that
randomness is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>compatible</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
with free will, but that's all. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">On
the other hand, if there is an indeterministic feature of human
behavior that happens to be like Bob's example above – i.e., if
it happens </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>against </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">everything
that the person stood for, his previous considerations, etc. -, then,
and as the previous example shows, that kind of indeterminism –
at least, when it happens – would actually </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>preclude </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">free
will; rather, the 'decision' would be an unfortunately random will.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">There
is another way to see this, taking into account that even under
the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>exact </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">same
preexisting conditions – including, of course, the previous
mental states of the libertarian-free agent. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
let's consider the following scenario (relativizing time as
required):</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alice
is a libertarian-free human, and at t(s), the state of worlds W and
W' is exactly the same – that includes, of course, Alice's
mental processes.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Later,
Alice libertarian-freely chooses A at W, and B at W', even though the
states of the worlds prior to Alice's decision were the same (A is
different from B). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, W and W' are exactly the same until Alice's mental
processes diverge.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
let p be a Planck time, and n a non-negative integer, starting with
0.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
consider times t(s)+n*p, and the states of W and W', W(n) and W'(n)
respectively.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let
n(l) be the last n such that W(n) = W'(n).</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Since
the 'decision' was made even given the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>exact </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">same
prior conditions, it seems that the 'decision' happened between
t(s)+n(l)*p, and t(s)+(n(l)+1)*p = t(s)+n(l)*p+p, in other words, the
'decision' was made </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>in
not more than a Planck time.</I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That's
way too fast for any human conscious decision, though. So, it becomes
clearer that the first indeterministic event E that distinguishes
between W and W' is same random alteration of Alice's mental
processes. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might suggest that, previous processes in her mind made E in
probable, but weren't enough to bring it about, something still
altered her mind randomly; let's assume that that would be a coherent
interpretation of probability (else, this objection fails already). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Even
then, the fact would remain that her mind was altered without a
cause, and with nothing she could do earlier to stop it; moreover, in
some cases, the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">improbable
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'decision'
might happen. And in those cases in which the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">improbable</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'decision'
happens – i.e., the decision that her previous mental processes
made improbable – </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we're
back with something like the unfortunate case of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#freedom"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
libertarian-free police officer.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might still object that, if such a random change in her mind
happened, she still could have changed her mind, and refrained from
carrying out the decision – in the case of the </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#freedom"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">first
example</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the shooting. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
problem is, though, that if you can have such a random event </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
t(s)+n(l)*p, and t(s)+(n(l)+1)*p, it seems you can have another one
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
every single Planck time that follows, </SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">until
the "decision" that was completely against everything the
person previously stood for, actually happens. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
let's suppose someone introduces some fuzziness in some way –
which they would have to explain, of course; else, the previous
reasoning stands. Even then, the fact would remain that the agent
would have a random component – a change in her mind she can't
bring about, because it happens no matter what she tried previously;
it's just that we wouldn't be able to see that by means of analyzing
the process step-by-step, but all of the other reasons I've given
above remain. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A
theist might say that that's 'actually the agent acting', or
something like that but – whatever that means -, the fact would
remain that that would a partially random agent acting, not one in
which mental processes are sufficient to bring about behavior; it
would be an agent with a randomly altered mind – i.e., a mind
that suffers some alterations that have no sufficient causes; it's
akin to dice-throwing, and in some cases, it might go against
everything the agent had stood for up till then. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
for all of the previous reasons, the claim that non-determinism is
required for freedom ought to be rejected. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
does not mean we can't act of our own accord, of course. We can and
sometimes do have freedom; it's just that indeterminism is not
required for that. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
there is an objection available to the theist, which seems to be
Craig's position: namely, that is lack of <I>causal </I>determination
that is required for freedom to exist, not lack of determinism.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
if an event is determined by previous conditions, then it seems it's
causally determined too, since some the previous conditions would be
causes. How would it be otherwise? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
seems puzzling. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
regardless, we can make a case against the requirement of causal
indeterminism independently. If causal indeterminism is true, then no
matter what Alice does up to some time t, all of her thought
processes, intentions, desires, memories, reasoning, are all
insufficient to bring about her decision. So, it seems that the
"decision" might just happen to her, and she might still
shoot Harry. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Again,
the theist might say that that's the agent acting. But how can she
act so quickly - indeed, instantaneously? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Humans
aside, someone might posit that the first cause is God and is not
deterministic, even though as we saw by analyzing the case of humans,
indeterminism surely isn't a requirement for freedom, and can at best
hamper it. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
that fails as well, as explained </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#godchange"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">earlier</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
since – at least – one may as well posit a
non-deterministic universe as an alternative that the theist defender
of the KCA has failed to refute. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Of
course, the non-theist need not be committed to indeterminism, or an
indeterministic universe, or a first cause, etc.; she may simply
posit that there are alternatives that the theist defender of the KCA
hasn't refuted. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="godmeaning"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>14.7)
The meaning of "God"</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
previous arguments show, Craig's arguments fail to support the
conclusion that there is a first cause, or a cause of the universe,
or that – assuming that there is such a first cause -, the
cause has the properties he claims it has. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
there is one more point I'd like to address here, and it's about the
meaning of "God": </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepage194"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[28]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 4cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">5.0.
Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who
sans the universe </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>is beginningless, changeless,
immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>This,
as Thomas Aquinas was wont to remark, is what everybody means by
“God.”</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Actually,
that is not what <I>everybody</I> means by 'God'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Plausibly,
it is not even be what <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">most
people </SPAN></SPAN>mean by 'God', or what <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">most
philosophers</SPAN></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">mean
by 'God'. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, by 'God', Richard Swinburne</FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#swinburnesgod"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[29]
</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>means
"a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is
eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and
the creator of all things". </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There
is nothing in Craig's description quoted above that entails
omnipotence, omniscience, moral goodness – let alone moral
perfection -, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
Swinburne explicitly denies that timelessness is part of the meaning
of 'God'. </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#swinburnesgod"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[29]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
let's take a look at the matter from another perspective: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect creator of all other
beings existed, and moreover he intervened in human history, but he
were not timeless, it would be hard to find many people saying that
God does not exist, on account of a lack of timelessness (assuming
that "timeless" is meaningful, that is). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
same goes for changelessness. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
the other hand, if an entity like the one Craig describes existed
(assuming again that the description is coherent)<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but – for example – he were not omniscient, not
omnipotent, not morally perfect (or even morally good), and never
intervened in human history – no afterlife, either -, it seems
to me that plenty of people would be inclined to say that God does
not exist, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">without
committing an error</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
fact, even if the Kalam Cosmological Argument – or, more
generally, any argument – succeeded in showing that the
universe has a cause, and even if further argumentation succeeded in
showing that said cause is an intelligent being with some of the
properties Craig ascribes to him in the previous quotation – or
all of them, assuming they all make sense -, that would still not
establish that God exists, in the sense the word 'God' is used by
many, plausibly most theists, and would be compatible with –
for instance – deism. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Conclusion"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>15)
Conclusion: </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="conclusion"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The KCA provides no
support for theism, both on <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">William
Lane Craig's version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and on many
other actual or potential versions. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Furthermore,
there appears to be no good reason, based on present-day science or
philosophy, to suspect that that's going to change: there are
numerous problems, and several of them appear clearly insurmountable.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notesreferences"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>Notes
and references:</B></FONT> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[1]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="kalam"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source: William Lane
Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument",
in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology", Edited by
William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, © 2009 Blackwell
Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<BR>Page 102. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[3]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="event1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source: William Lane
Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument",
in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology", Edited by
William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, © 2009 Blackwell
Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<BR>Page 106. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="rf1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[4]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="rsf1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5673&printer_friendly=1</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[5]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="rsf2"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5971</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[6]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The choice of the
change in God from timelessness to temporalness as the event is only
one possibility. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There are
alternatives. For instance, let say the actual world contains a state
of affairs S at which God exists timelessly. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Then, at S, time
does not exist, so it's not the case that God knows that time exists.
On the other hand, at t=0, God knows that time exists. <BR>Let E(1)
be the event “God comes to know that time exists” </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Another alternative
would be:</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>At S, there are no
tensed facts. So, it's not the case that God knows any tensed truths.
At t=0, there are tensed facts, so God knows tensed truths. Thus,
God's mind changed – he came to know tensed truths -, and one
can consider the event E(2) “God changes from not knowing any
tensed facts at S, to knowing some tensed facts at t=0”. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[7]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notecraigreply"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9269</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[8]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notepage116"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 116. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[9]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notepage192"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6. Page 192. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[10]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[11]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="meaningbegins"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>W.
L. Craig and J. P. Sinclair</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
affirming that things which begin to exist need a cause, the
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">mutakallim
</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">assumes
the following understanding of that notion, where “</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">x</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">”
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">r</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">anges
over any entity and “</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>t</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">”
ranges over times, whether instants or moments of nonzero finite
duration:</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="beginsdefinition"></A>
<BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">A.
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>x </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">begins
to exist at </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>t </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">iff
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>x </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">comes
into being at </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>t</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">B.
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>x </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">comes
into being at </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>t </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">iff
(i) </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>x </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">exists
at </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>t, </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">and
the actual world includes no state of affairs in which </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>x
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">exists timelessly, (ii) </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>t
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">is either the first time at which </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>x
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">exists or is separated from any </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>t</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">′
< </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>t </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">at
which </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>x </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">existed
by an interval during which </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>x </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">does
not exist, and (iii) </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>x</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">’s
existing at </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>t </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">is
a tensed fact. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notepage184"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source: William Lane
Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument",
in "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology", <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Edited
by William lane Craig and J. P. Moreland; pages 184, 185. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notepage1842"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[12]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 184. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[13]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="timelessnote"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Assuming
here, and for the sake of the argument, that "timeless" is
coherent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[14]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notepage182"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 182.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[15]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Of
course, a potentially serious problem may be the reliability of our
intuitions in such cases, but that's no help for someone claiming
that the first premise ought to be accepted, or even merely that it's
rational to do so. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[16]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notereaders"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Readers,
of course, will check the matter by their own intuitions, as always. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="noteobjects"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[17]
Incidentally, if we take objects in daily life as examples for
inductive arguments, we might as well conclude that no object is
timeless, or that all personal beings came into existence, and so on.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[18]
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="hotelquote1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source: The
Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Edited
by William lane Craig and J. P. Moreland; page 109. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[19]
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="minusset"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>By
“Set A minus set B” I mean the set C whose elements are
all the elements that are in A, but are not in B. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notezeno"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[20]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Page
119. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="noteshandy1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[21]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Sources:</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
Craig's argument: William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The
Kalam Cosmological Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion
to Natural Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P.
Moreland, © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN:
978-1-405-17657-6</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Pages
120-124</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
contradiction was first proved by </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>Josh
Dever, in "Worlds Apart"<I>, </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Taiwanese
Journal for Philosophy and History of Science, 10 (1998). </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[22]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="noteleap"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I'm
stipulating 1 year = 365 days and ignoring leap years, for the sake
of simplicity; a more complicated proof would include leap years, but
it's clear that the contradiction does not depend on whether we count
leap years. Also, the stipulation that the past has the order type of
the negative integers is reasonable, given that Craig considers that
we should reject that alternative due to the 'Tristram Shandy'
argument. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notepage120"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[23]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Page
120. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Incidentally,
the 'orbits' argument also fails to distinguish between a tensed and
a tenseless theory of time. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[24]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notecardinals"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I'm
using the definition of the cardinal of an ordinal </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
the least ordinal </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">m</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
can be put in a one-to-one correspondence with </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">n</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(ordinals
are sets, and so are cardinals), but that's not important here. The
relevant point is that there is no absurdity or counterintuitive
result, once one takes into consideration what the words actually
mean, under any mathematical definition of cardinality. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="standardbigbangnote"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">[25]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 130. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[26]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteconceptual"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<BR>Pages
191-194. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notepage193"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[27]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<BR>Page 193. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[28]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notepage194"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<BR>Page 194. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[29]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="swinburnesgod"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Swinburne,
Richard "The Existence of God", Second Edition.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>Cla</FONT></SPAN></FONT>rendon
Press Oxford. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Page
7. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="line-height: 150%"><BR><BR>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-1545362826554718492012-02-09T06:32:00.031-08:002013-06-08T01:59:34.660-07:00Metaethical Arguments Provide no Support for Theism<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="LibreOffice 3.5 (Windows)">
<META NAME="AUTHOR" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20120127;22015818">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20120708;20265359">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" DIR="LTR">
<P><A HREF="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0mQAE95lvhxWkh4VkJCc21jMHM">Download
in .pdf format</A></P>
<P><A HREF="http://www.4shared.com/office/JlX9IG93/Metaethical_Arguments_Provide_.html">Alternative
link</A>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=5 STYLE="font-size: 21pt"><B>Metaet</B></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><FONT SIZE=5 STYLE="font-size: 21pt"><B>hical
Arguments Provide no Support for Theism</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#intro"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>0)
Introduction</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#terms"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>1)
Terminology</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Darwin"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2)
Linville's epistemic argument, and Darwinian counterfactuals</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#z-color"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.1)
Color, truth, and extraterrestrials</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#zarkonians"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.2)
Morality, truth and extraterrestrials</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#side note"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.2.1)
A side note on contact</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#species relativism"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.3)
Objectivism/realism, or species-relativism?</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#morality for all"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.4)
A semantic challenge: morality for all sufficiently intelligent
beings</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#supervenience"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.5)
Supervenience</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#difference"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>2.6)
The ancestral environment: a difference between color and morality</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#roadsofar"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>3)
The road so far</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#ontology"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>4)
Ontology</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>4.1)
Ontology, property identity and semantics</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#color ontology"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>4.2)
Color ontology </B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#color supervenience"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>4.2.1)
Color and supervenience</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#colorantirealism"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>4.2.2)
Color antirealism</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#moral ontology"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>4.3)
Moral ontology</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>5</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#open question"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>)
The Open Question Argument</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#general considerations"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>5.1)
General considerations</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#science1"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>5.2)
Science, color and morality</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Filling the gap"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>5.3)
Filling the gap</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#moral goodness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>5.3.1)
Moral goodness</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#badness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>5.3.2)
Moral badness, immorality and moral wrongness</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#obligation"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>5.3.3)
Moral obligations, and 'ought'</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#isought"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>6)
Prescription and description, 'is' and 'ought', and related matters</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#sciencedescription"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>6.1)
Science and description</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#isoughtreduction"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>6.2)
Is and ought</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#isobligation"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>6.3)
Is, ought, and moral obligation</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#moralitydescription"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>6.4)
Morality, description, and prescription</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#sciencemorality"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>6.5)
Science and morality, part 2</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#motivation"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>7)
Motivation</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#psycho"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7.1)
Psychology, psychopaty, and morality</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#aliens again"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7.2)
Aliens again</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#phenomenology"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7.3)
Moral phenomenology and moral judgments</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#possibleevolutionary"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>7.4)
A potential evolutionary account</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#roadsofar 2"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>8)
The road so far - II</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#personal dignity"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><U><B>9)
Linville's argument from personal dignity</B></U></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#reasons"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9.1)
"Why is that immoral?"</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#bayoneting"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9.2)
Bayoneting alien cyborgs for fun</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#terminator"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9.3)
Delinquent mathematicians and alien robots</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#wronged"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9.4)
Someone has been wronged</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#trackingmental"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9.5)
Tracking mental properties: direct tracking, indirect tracking, and
ontology</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#attempted"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9.6)
Attempted crimes and punishments</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#moral obligations"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9.7)
Moral obligations</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#moral rights"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9.8)
Moral rights</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#wouldntmatter"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9.9)
Alternatives under evolutionary naturalism</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#intrinsic"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>9.10)
Mind-independent value?</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#circularity"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9.11)
Darker and darker</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#bottom"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>9.12)
Where is the bottom?</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#persons naturalism"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9.13)
Persons and evolutionary naturalism</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#values perceptions"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>9.14)
Values and perceptions</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#disagreement"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>10)
Disagreement</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Fall"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>10.1)
The Fall</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#evolutionary"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>10.2)
A potential evolutionary hypothesis</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#toomany"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>11)
Too many beliefs?</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#heroism"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>12)
Heroism</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#psychology"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>13)
Psychology, not ontology</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#materialism"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>14)
Materialism</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#freedom"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>15)
Freedom, libertarian 'freedom', and determinism</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#practical"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>16)
A practical diversion</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#accountability"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>16.1)
Accountability</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Motivation"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>16.2)
Motivation again</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#failure DCT"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>17)
The failure of Divine Command Theories (DCT)</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#ontological DCT"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>17.1)
Ontological Divine Command Theories</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#meta"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>17.1.1)
Metaphysical possibilities</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#obligatios of God"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>17.1.2)
The moral obligations of a personal creator</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#rebutta"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>17.1.3)
Rebuttal to a potential theistic objection</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#semantic DCT"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>17.2)
Semantic DCT</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#commanders"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>17.2.1)
Obligations and commanders</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Copan"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>18)
Copan's metaethical arguments against evolutionary naturalism</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#moraltruths"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>18.1)
Moral truths and valuing</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#valuinginstrumentally"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>18.2)
Valuing instrumentally and valuing finally</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#arbitrariness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>18.3)
Arbitrary morality?</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#explanatory power"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>18.4)
Explanatory power and bloated ontologies</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#illnessbadness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>18.4.1)
Illness and moral badness</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#language"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>18.4.1.1)
Language</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#facts"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>18.4.1.2)
Facts</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#rednessbadness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>18.4.2)
Redness and moral badness</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#conclusion"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>19)
Conclusion </B></U></FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#notes"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>Notes
and references</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="intro"></A><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>0)
Introduction </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>1)
In this article, I will make a case against metaethical arguments for
theism. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
will use mostly Linville's<A HREF="#linville1">[1]</A>, Craig's<A HREF="#notecraigpod">[2]</A></FONT></FONT>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and Copan's<A HREF="#notecopan">[3]</A>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>arguments as
examples, but this article is not limited to those metaethical
arguments: instead, my aim is to show that no theistic metaethical
argument provides any support for theism. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>2)
Metaethical arguments for theism essentially intend to show that some
actual feature of morality is incompatible with non-theism, or at
least with what Linville calls "evolutionary naturalism"
(EN): </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Linville
defines EN as "<FONT COLOR="#231f20">the combination of
naturalism and an overall Darwinian account of the origin of
species". </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Theistic
claims may be epistemic (e.g., if EN is true, then there is no moral
knowledge, or moral knowledge is undermined), or ontological (e.g.,
if EN is true, then there are no moral facts). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
I have some doubts about the coherence of the natural/non-natural
distinction, but there is no need to get into that: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>We
may understand EN to mean that: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>a)
There are no souls or similar beings, </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>b)
There are no Platonic realms, or generally Platonic objects, and</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>c)
Human faculties – i.e., faculties shared by our species –
are the result of an evolutionary process not guided by any designer.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I'm
assuming that the concept of a soul is coherent, but it's very
improbable that a theist could object to that without contradicting
some of his theological views. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Still,
if the concept is of a soul is not coherent, let's understand EN as
before, only removing the reference to souls or similar beings. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Similarly,
if the concept of Platonic realms or objects is incoherent, let's
assume EN as before, but removing the reference to Platonic realms or
objects. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Showing
that no theistic metaethical argument shows that, plausibly, if EN –
so understood – is true, then there is no moral knowledge, or
moral truths, etc., suffices to defeat all theistic metaethical
arguments. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
is true that Linville's conception of evolutionary naturalism might
be slightly different from the one I just defined, so if I say –
for instance – that Linville argues that there is no moral
knowledge under EN, I do so with the understanding and recognition
that his claim might have been slightly different from what the
previous understanding of EN would entail. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
that is not a problem in this context, because: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>a)
His concept of evolutionary naturalism and the one I defined are
probably very similar, even if not a perfect match, and </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>b)
In any case, showing that Linville's metaethical epistemic arguments
– and any similar ones – fail to show that there is no
moral knowledge if EN is true, and under the understanding of EN I
just defined, is enough to show that such arguments provide no
support for theism. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>3)
Generally, I will not assess arguments against moral ontology, or
against moral knowledge, that might be raised by different moral
anti-realists, but are incompatible with theism. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
would be unnecessary in this context: since any defender of a
metaethical argument for theism is committed to the failure of all
such arguments, we may safely leave those arguments aside, without
failing to address any arguments a theist might make. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>4)
Before I go on, I'd like to say that the main ideas on which I base
this argument against metaethical arguments are from others, not from
me. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
particular, I'd like to acknowledge an anonymous poster who goes by
the nickname 'Bomb#20' at www.freeratio.org as the source of several
of the key ideas I've used in this article. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Other
ideas are quite common and come from a number of other sources,
though I do not know where they originated, nor recall where I saw
them first. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>While
I've also used some ideas I came up with, but I have no good reason
to think I'm the first one to come up with them, so there is no claim
of novelty on my part. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="terms"></A><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>1)
Terminology </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="moral agents"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>1) By a 'moral
agent' I mean a being who has moral properties (e.g, she may be
morally good, morally bad, etc.), and/or some of whose actions have
moral properties. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
be clear, moral agency is <I>not</I> about whether it's morally good
or bad to treat a being in some way. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, it's immoral for humans to torture cats for fun, but that
does not mean that cats are moral agents. They are not. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>2)
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I
will use the word 'argument' loosely, to refer to both the formal
argument, and the informal arguments used to support the premises of
the formal argument. I think this is a common way of speaking, and
context should prevent any ambiguity despite some notational abuse. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">3)
I have doubts about the coherence of the natural/non-natural
distinction, so I will avoid those terms whenever possible. When it
comes to supervenience, for instance, I will prefer to talk about
whether moral properties supervene on non-moral properties, rather
than whether they supervene on natural properties. I will address the
matter in more detail <A HREF="#supernatural">later</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="EN"></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">4)
As stated in the <A HREF="#intro">introduction</A>, by "evolutionary
naturalism" or "EN" I mean the view </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that:
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>a)
There are no souls or similar beings, </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>b)
There are no Platonic realms, or generally Platonic objects, and</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>c)
Human faculties – i.e., faculties shared by our species –
are the result of an evolutionary process not guided by any designer.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I'm
assuming that the concept of a soul is coherent, but it's very
improbable that a theist could object to that without contradicting
some of his theological views. Still, if the concept is of a soul is
not coherent, let's understand EN as defined above, only removing the
reference to souls or similar beings. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="strong intelligence"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Similarly,
if the concept of Platonic realms or objects is incoherent, let's
understand EN as defined above, but removing the reference to
Platonic realms or objects. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>5)
By "strong intelligence" I mean an average human IQ, or
greater. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>6)
When I say "mental state" I mean it in a general sense,
including intentions, beliefs, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>7)
I will use words like 'behavior' and 'behave' in a general sense,
including omissions, unless context indicates otherwise. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">8)
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
only refer to different parts of this article as "sections"
or "subsections" - i.e., no sub-subsections, etc.; I will
use links between the relevant parts of the document as required, to
prevent any ambiguity.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Darwin"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>2)
Linville's epistemic argument, and Darwinian counterfactuals </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="AEN"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
I will begin my counterargument by addressing an epistemic objection
that Linville raises, in his "Argument From Evolutionary
Naturalism" (AEN), as a means to introduce most of the issues
under discussion: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Linville:</B>
(p. 409)</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Had
the circumstances of human evolution been more like those of hive
bees or Galapagos boobies or wolves, then the directives of
conscience may have led us to judge and behave in ways that are quite
foreign to our actual moral sense.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First,
it should not be assumed that any kind of social organization is
compatible, given the way our universe works, with the evolution of
social beings with <A HREF="#strong intelligence">strong
intelligence</A>. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>While
we have no good reason to assume that our moral sense would have to
be shared by every social species with <A HREF="#strong intelligence">strong
intelligence</A>, we should not assume that </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>everything</I></FONT></FONT>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>is an evolutionary
possibility in our universe, either. That is an empirical matter than
needs to be assessed. </FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><BR>Even
though some environmental conditions may be very different –
e.g., different planets -, others are common in any social animal
which is evolving and becoming increasingly intelligent – for
example, the very fact that they're living in social groups of
increasingly intelligent individuals -, and that might constrain the
kind of social organization <A HREF="#strong intelligence">strongly
intelligent</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">social
animals might have, as a result of the evolutionary process. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Second,
leaving that aside, it is not true that a different evolutionary
history would </SPAN></SPAN>have led <I>us</I> to behave in such
ways, quite foreign to our moral sense. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
fact, <I>we </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
not have behaved in any way at all, because </SPAN></SPAN><I>we </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
not have existed at all. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Third
– and this goes to the heart of the matter -, it seems that
those entities who would have evolved in a different environment
would not have made </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I>moral</I></FONT>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">claims
at all. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
this is a point I will address in much greater detail <A HREF="#z-color">below</A>.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Fourth, actually,
for all we know, scenarios of different evolutionary histories and
senses other than a moral sense may very well be actual: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In other words, for
all we know, something like that may have already happened. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
that note, let's suppose that at least one social species </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>s</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">with
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#strong intelligence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">strong
intelligence</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
with a kind of sense more or less akin to our moral sense –
say, an s-moral sense – evolves, on average, for every ten
million galaxies. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
that case, there would be over a million such species. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="exobiology"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Now,
it seems that someone raising Linville's </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AEN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">AEN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
or any argument that resembles it, is committed to the claim that one
of the following is true: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>P1</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
It's not the case that at least one social species with </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#strong intelligence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">strong
intelligence</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
for every ten million galaxies. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="trilemma"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>P2</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
There are over a</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">million
such species, and all of the s-moralities are actually morality:
their s-moral sense picks the same properties as the moral sense. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
for each such species <B>s</B>, s-morality is the same as morality,
s-moral properties are moral properties, and so on. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, <I>all</I> of them, on every single planet on which they
evolved, got a system that tracks just the same properties as our own
moral sense. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>P3</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
There are over a million such species, but only humans and perhaps
some of the others are special ones and have morality, whereas the
others have their respective s-moral sense, which fails to track
moral properties, so they're vastly confused. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It's
even worse, though, because if the defender of the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AEN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">AEN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">did</FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">not
reject </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>P3</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">as
very implausible, then that would undermine their belief that we're
among the select ones. In other words, if other species ended up with
unwarranted moral beliefs, why should we believe that we're not among
those? </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
it seems they're even committed to the view that </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>(P1
v P2)</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
true, which is indeed a very bold claim about exobiology, and with no
good evidence to back it up. Moreover, even if we take the triple
conjunction – i.e., </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>(P1
v P2 v P3) -, </B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that's
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">still</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
very bold claim about exobiology, without any good evidence to back
it up. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Thus,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>the
theistic position</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
unwarranted. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
other words, it's the theist defender of an </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AEN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">AEN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">who
is espousing an unwarranted view. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">To
be clear, I'm not making a claim that the s-moralities would be
variable. In other words, I'm not </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>denying
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
disjunction. I'm merely pointing out that such a position is
unwarranted. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>might</I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">be
that the constraints on the evolutionary possibilities of social
entities with </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#strong intelligence"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">strong
intelligence</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
such that every such entity gets morality – i.e., all the
s-moralities are in fact morality -, but that's surely not an
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>assumption</I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
we should make. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
fact, it seems animals with similar IQ may have rather different
evolved social propensities, so that level of constraint seems rather
implausible to me, but there is no need to take a stance on that
here, and in any case it's a matter for biologists to study. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
any event, if the constraints are so strong that no such variation
would occur, then that alone blocks Linville's </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#AEN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">AEN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
or any other similar epistemic metaethical argument. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
since that variation would be – contrary to Linville's claim –
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>not
</I></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
problem for moral knowledge under </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
let's assume, from now on, that on </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">such
variation happens, and let's see why theistic metaethical arguments
fail regardless of that. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="z-color"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>2.1)
Color, truth and extraterrestrials </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Another defender of
a metaethical argument for theism – William Lane Craig –
brings up an analogy between color and morality. I will extensively
use that analogy to make a number of points, not only when addressing
some of Craig's metaethical arguments, but Linville's arguments as
well, and generally when addressing a number of metaethical issues
that some theists raise or might raise. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig: </B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(from
his podcast)</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <A HREF="#notecraigpod"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[2]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>We
could imagine a world of color blind people, where everybody was
colorblind, so that nobody saw there was a difference between red and
green, but that wouldn't mean that there isn't any such thing. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Or
imagine that a world where everybody, say, was deaf: that wouldn't
mean that there were no sounds or something like that; that wouldn't
mean that sound waves weren't therefore produced. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
don't think that moral values are something that just sort of exist
in your head. I'd say they're external to the body. They're "out
there". </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Okay,
so there are differences between red and green, and differences
between right and wrong. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
person who accepts </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">may
of course grant all of that, without any difficulty. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now, we already know
that there are animals that don't see the world in the same kind of
colors we do. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It's
entirely possible that there social beings with <A HREF="#strong intelligence">strong
intelligence</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">on
other planets in other galaxies who have a different visual system. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's say that
zurkovians are one such species. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>They experience
something that looks similar to color vision, but they don't quite
see the same. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In particular, let's
an object that we see as red and green looks monochromatic to a
zurkovian with normal z-color vision. Also, they see no difference
between a red traffic light and a green traffic light. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On the other hand,
zurkovians perceive differences in objects that we see as
monochromatic, which actually have different reflective properties in
part of the ultraviolet spectrum which is visible to them. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, are the
zurkovians making false color statements all the time? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Is their color
vision not truth-aimed, and only ours is? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Are humans the
special ones, and those poor zurkovians would have to accept a
z-color error theory? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
answer is clearly </SPAN></SPAN><I>no. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Just as humans make
(generally) true color statements, and our color vision is
truth-aimed, zurkovians make (generally) true z-color statements, and
their z-color vision is truth-aimed as well. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There is a
difference between red and green, as Craig points out. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, zurkovians
cannot see it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On the other hand,
there is also a difference between, say, z-red and z-green –
two colors that zurkovians talk about -, but humans cannot see it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Furthermore, it may
even be that z-green looks to zurkovians as green looks to humans,
and z-red looks to zurkovians as red looks to humans – assuming
similar perceptions among different humans, which is at the very
least conceivable -, but it remains the case that z-red is not red,
z-green is not green, and there are real differences between red and
green that zurkovians can't see, and real differences between z-red
and z-green that humans can't see. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Humans and
zurkovians, then, have different visual systems, and both can see
real differences in the world around them, even if not the same
differences. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If, in a distant
future, humans and zurkovians were to make contact, then if they
thought that they can correctly translate z-color statements into
color statements and vice versa, they would be making a mistake and
talking past each other. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But plausibly, those
scientifically advanced star-faring humans and their zurkovian
counterparts will easily realize that they're just not talking about
the same properties. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, a solution would
be to just "translate" color statements – and z-color
statements – into something both sides can understand. Perhaps,
their physics theories are close enough to turn z-color statements
into statements that humans understand, and color statements into
something that zurkovians understand, preserving referent if not
meaning. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But obviously, none
of the above would in any way undermine our warrant in assessing
that, say, a traffic light was red, and not green. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="zarkonians"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>2.2)
Morality, truth and extraterrestrials</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's say that, on
their planet, zurkovians have evolved differently, and they have a
social organization and some kind of sense analogous but different
from our moral sense that allows them to navigate their social world.
Let's call that sense a 'z-moral sense'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Now,
as zurkovians have a <A HREF="#z-color">z-color</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">vision
that allows them to make (generally) true z-color assessments, they
have a z-moral sense, which allows them to make generally true
z-moral assessments. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On the other hand,
humans have color vision, which allows us to make generally true
color assessments, and a moral sense, which allows us to make
generally true moral assessments. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>None of the senses,
either human or zurkovian, is infallible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Now,
Linville and some other theists maintain or imply that the
possibility, on <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>, that beings such as zurkovians
might evolve, would undermine the warrant of our moral assessments,
even to the point of rendering such assessments unwarranted. But they
do not seem to explain </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>why</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>how</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It's
apparent that our </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">color</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">statements
would not be affected in such a way, so it's not the case that
different evolutionary histories and different senses would always
undermine the warrant of our assessments in some domain. So, when a
theist claims that our </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>moral
</B></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">assessments
would be so undermined, they ought to argue their case. The burden is
on them, and it's a burden they've not discharged – not even
close. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's take a look at
the matter from another perspective. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let
us suppose that, in the future, we or our descendants in fact</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">do
</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">make
contact with an alien civilization, and the aliens happen to have not
a moral sense, but something different, like a z-moral sense.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Should
we, or our descendants, conclude that our assessment that the
Holocaust was immoral, is unwarranted, just because some aliens on
another planet happened to evolve differently? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Why?
</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Linville and
defenders of similar arguments are committed to a 'yes' answer to the
first question above, but give no good reason to think that that is
the case. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Instead,
they merely claim that, under <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>, such different
evolutionary histories would be a possibility, and then jump to the
conclusion that that would be a problem for <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>,
perhaps quoting some non-theist moral error theorists who make
similar claims. But that does not go </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">anywhere
near</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">meeting
their burden. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Again, let's suppose
some aliens evolved differently, like the hypothetical zurkovians. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">How</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">why</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
that have </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">anything
to do </SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">with
the warrant of our assessment that the Holocaust was immoral? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The unmet burden is
very obvious at this point. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="side note"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>2.2.1)
A side note on contact</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There are of course
differences between morality and color when it comes to, say, the
consequences of encountering beings with different evolutionary
histories and which may have a z-moral sense and z-color vision
instead of a moral sense and color vision, and <I>perhaps</I> also
when it comes to whether such beings would have moral properties vs.
color properties. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But those matters
are not relevant to the question of whether <I>our</I> <I>moral
assessments </I>are warranted. If someone claims otherwise, they
ought to defend their claim. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
aside – and though this is a side note -, with respect to the
different consequences, if humans made contact with <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A>,
and neither size realizes that morality is not the same thing as
<A HREF="#zarkonians">z-morality</A>, they may well end up talking
past each other. That's no different from color and <A HREF="#z-color">z-color</A>.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
the other hand, if – for instance -, both human moral
psychology and <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovian</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">z-moral
psychology are developed enough for both sides to realize that
they're not talking about the same thing, conflict may still arise,
which does not happen in the case of color and z-color. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">After
all, morality and z-morality are motivational in a way that color and
z-color are not – let us stipulate that z-morality is as
motivational to <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">as
morality is to humans. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, even
understanding that the other species is not talking about the same
thing they're talking about might not be, on its own, enough to avert
conflict. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For example, some
humans might say:</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Okay,
so we realize that <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">aren't
being z-immoral, but they're still being immoral in a number of ways,
and they won't change their ways because they don't even care about
morality! </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">They
just care about <A HREF="#zarkonians">z-morality</A>! Let's punish
the immoral <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A>!</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Similarly, some
zurkovians might say: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Okay, so we realize
that humans aren't being immoral, but they're still being z-immoral
in a number of ways, and they won't change their ways because they
don't even care about z-morality! </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>They just care about
morality! Let's punish the z-immoral humans!</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That raises some
questions, such as: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Can zurkovians be
immoral, or behave immorally, etc.? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
general, can an entity that does not have a moral sense be a <A HREF="#moral agents">moral
agent</A>? </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Would
<A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">not
more properly be characterized as non-<A HREF="#moral agents">moral
agents,</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">like
a lion or a dolphin, even if much more intelligent than those
animals? </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Perhaps,
<A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
not <A HREF="#moral agents">moral agents</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">at
all. Perhaps, humans are not z-moral agents at all. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Perhaps, it depends
on how different the z-moral sense is from the moral sense. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Perhaps,
<A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">could
have some moral properties, but not others, depending on how similar
zurkovians are to humans, psychologically. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Those questions do
not arise in the case of color, and are difficult ethical matters,
but do not present a problem for the non-theist. The color analogy is
an <I>analogy</I>, not a perfect match. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
point of the color analogy in this context is that just because some
beings may evolve differently, make </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#z-color"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">z-color</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">assessments
and the like, that does not undermine our color assessments at all. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
it's not the case that merely the fact that evolution may have taken
a different path somewhere else would make our assessments on a
specific subject (e.g., color) unwarranted. If a theist claims that
morality is different and that, in the specific case of morality,
such different evolutionary paths – or even the possibility of
them – would make our moral assessments unwarranted, they would
have to </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">argue
for that. </SPAN></I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
burden would be on them, and as I pointed out, they've not met it. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
for the questions mentioned above, we may point out the following:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><BR>First,
a non-theist need not take a stance on how similar <A HREF="#zarkonians">z-morality</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
morality would actually be. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
fact, given insufficient information, we shouldn't take a stance at
all. We shouldn't be committed to <A HREF="#exobiology">claims about
exobiology for which we don't have enough evidence</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Second,
a non-theist need not take a stance on how similar those beings would
have to be in order for them to be <A HREF="#moral agents">moral
agents</A>. That's a difficult ethical question, but not one related
to the issue of the general warrant of our moral assessments, as far
as one can tell. If a theist claimed otherwise, they would have to
argue their case. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="othermoralagents"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Third,
even if morality evolved with humans, and even if <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
not be <A HREF="#moral agents">moral agents</A>, that does not imply
or suggests that only humans can possibly be <A HREF="#moral agents">moral
agents</A>:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For example, at
least nearly all of the fictional extraterrestrials in movies, TV
shows, novels, and the like, would be moral agents if they existed,
because their minds are very similar to human minds – which is
unsurprising, given that they were invented by humans. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Similarly, entities
posited by different religions, and who in English are usually called
'gods', 'spirits', 'monsters', 'demons', etc., would also be moral
agents, at least in most cases – which is unsurprising, given
that they were invented by humans, though arguing that point is
beyond the scope of this article. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone might say:
but who imposed moral obligations on them? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That,
however, would be confused: there is <A HREF="#failure DCT">no need
for any Supreme Commander in order for moral obligations to exist.</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It's
enough that some actions of those entities would be immoral, and in
order for that to be the case, all that's needed is that the minds of
such entities are sufficiently similar to human minds. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
above is enough to conclude <A HREF="#side note">this side note</A>,
so we may move on to the <A HREF="#species relativism">next
subsection</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I will now add a
side note within the side note and speculate about what we might
expect in case of such contact, but the following isn't relevant to
the metaethical argument: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Even
if it turns out that <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can
be and usually are immoral, it would plausibly be immoral for some
humans to start an interplanetary war that would likely result in
massive suffering and death for millions or even billions of humans,
for no reason other than punishing immoral <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A>.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Perhaps,
it would similarly be <A HREF="#zarkonians">z-immoral</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">for
some <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
start an interplanetary war that would likely result in massive
suffering and death for millions or even billions of <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A>,
for no reason other than punishing z-immoral humans. But if that is
not so, then such is life </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>What if, say, one
side is way too advanced for the other to be a threat? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In that case, I
think it would be immoral for humans to annihilate the defenseless
zurkovians just to punish them, even if they generally behaved
immorally. There might be other reasons, such as preventing them from
annihilating a third species, if that cannot be averted in a
different way. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
it's the other way around, </SPAN></SPAN><I>perhaps </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">it
would be z-immoral for zarkonians to annihilate the defenseless
humans. If not, such is life. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In any event, the
chances of any kind of contact with advanced extraterrestrial species
in the near future does not appear to be high (i.e., they're
<I>extremely</I> low, in my assessment), and if contact happened in,
say, millions of years, humans or post-humans would plausibly be
advanced enough not to be defenseless. If not, again such is life. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">We
may speculate based on the information available to us, but what we
shouldn't do is engage in wishful thinking and just </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>assume</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
every social species with <A HREF="#strong intelligence">strong
intelligence</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">will
have a moral sense, as we do. That would be an <A HREF="#exobiology">unwarranted
claim about exobiology</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="species relativism"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>2.3)
Moral realism, or species-relativism?</B></FONT> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A theist philosopher
might claims that the previous account would only give us some kind
of species-relativism, rather than true moral realism. Alternatively,
or additionally, they might claim that that would not be objective
morality, and/or that that wouldn't be absolute morality. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It's
not clear to me that any such that claims would be true, but </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><I>in
any event, </I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">whether
or not the </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><I>technical
philosophical terms</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'realism',
'objective', or 'absolute' apply to views of morality like the
evolutionary account sketched in this article is </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><I>irrelevant
to the matters at hand, </I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">since
the situation of morality would be, under such an account, </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><I>exactly</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
same as that of color, with regard to the issues of realism,
objectivism, absolutism, etc., and we have color truths, knowledge,
etc. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
other words, under an account like the one sketched in this article,
it remains the case – to use something like Craig's Holocaust
example<A HREF="#notecraigpod">[2]</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">-
that the Holocaust was immoral, regardless of what anyone believed
about it, just as, say, Nazi uniforms were not red regardless of what
the Nazis or anyone else may have believed. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover, under such
an account, the Holocaust would still have been immoral even if the
Nazis had brainwashed everyone and convinced them otherwise, just as
Nazi uniforms would not have been red even if the Nazis had
brainwashed everyone, convincing them that their uniforms were red –
given the same uniforms, of course. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Furthermore, how the
Nazis felt about any of those matters, or how other people who
assessed the matters felt or feel about them, or how they perceived
them, etc., also does not affect the truth that the Holocaust was
immoral, and Nazi uniforms were not red. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
fact that the Nazis had no intentions of making anyone believe that
their uniforms were red, or that we ascertain moral truth by means
different from those by which we ascertain color truth is of course
beside the point here: The point here is that </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>if</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">words
such as 'realism', 'objective' and 'absolute' are used in philosophy
in such a way that there is no objective color, absolute color, or
color realism is not true just because another species might have a
different visual system and see things differently, we still have of
course color facts, like the fact that Nazi uniforms weren't red, and
that does not depend on who's making the assessment, how some people
feel about it, what they believe, etc., we still have color
knowledge, and so on.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Given
the above, claiming that there would be no moral realism,
objectivism, absolutism, etc., on </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
would be a moot point: regardless of whether such technical terms
apply to this account, our moral assessments would be warranted just
as our color assessments are. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
aside, incidentally, the name "species-relativism" would
probably not be adequate, since – among other reasons –
it might give the impression that only humans are possible <A HREF="#moral agents">moral
agents</A>, which is not the case, as I explained <A HREF="#othermoralagents">earlier</A>.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="morality for all"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>2.4)
A semantic challenge: morality for all sufficiently intelligent
beings </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">A
theist might claim that somehow our moral language is committed to
the impossibility of <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">and </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">their
<A HREF="#zarkonians">z-morality</A>: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">According
to this objection, our moral language commits us to the claim that
(at least) all social beings with <A HREF="#strong intelligence">strong
intelligence</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
have a moral sense – not <A HREF="#zarkonians">z-moral</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">sense,
or anything like that -, since that is logically entailed by
statements ascribing moral properties (such as 'X is morally wrong').
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, that would
have to be <I>argued for</I>, and the burden would be on the theist. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
the face of it, it seems implausible that that's a </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>semantic
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">requirement
of moral statements, since <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">are</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">conceivable,
and intuitively don't seem to lead us to any conflict with the idea
of humans making true moral claims. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
other words, it's conceivable that social beings with <A HREF="#strong intelligence">strong
intelligence</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">and
with some sense different from our moral sense exist elsewhere in the
universe. It's also conceivable that they make generally true <A HREF="#zarkonians">z-moral</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">judgments;
none of that seems to interfere with </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>our</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">moral
judgments, though. <A HREF="#notereaders1">[4]</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But we may look at
this from a different perspective, as before: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let
us suppose that, in the future, we or our descendants in fact</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">do
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">make
contact with an advanced alien civilization, and the aliens –
which/who are <A HREF="#strong intelligence">strongly intelligent</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
– </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">happen
to have not a moral sense, but something different, like a <A HREF="#zarkonians">z-moral</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">sense.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Should we, or our
descendants, conclude that – for instance – our
assessment that the Holocaust was immoral, is unwarranted, just
because some smart aliens on another planet happened to evolve
differently, without a moral sense? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Should we withdraw
the clear assessments that, say, Hitler and Ted Bundy were bad
people, merely because some intelligent aliens orbiting a distant
star do not have a moral sense, but something only somewhat similar
instead? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As before, if a
theist claims so, the burden would be on them. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Linville and others
seems to assume a 'yes' answer to all such questions, but they don't
give any good reason for the answer. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="supervenience"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>2.5)
Supervenience</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>According to
Linville, if moral properties supervene on "natural properties"
- as Sturgeon maintains -, then Darwinian counterfactuals are a
serious problem, since the smart wolves would have a moral sense that
would give them false beliefs. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So – the
objection goes – why think that the human moral sense does any
better? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As
I <A HREF="#Darwin">mentioned</A>, there is no good reason to think
that </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>any</I></FONT></FONT>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">kind
of social organization could result, in our universe, in beings with
human-like intelligence, so we don't know whether such smart wolves
would actually evolve: it may very well be that, if wolves were to
evolve into animals with <A HREF="#strong intelligence">strong
intelligence</A>, their social structure would also change during
that evolutionary process. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Still,
leaving that aside, the relevant point here is that the conclusion
that the wolves would have false </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I>moral
</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">beliefs
is unwarranted. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
fact, it seems that they would have true w-moral beliefs, like the
<A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
have true z-moral beliefs, and humans have true moral beliefs. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
the wolves would not have moral beliefs – true or false -, just
as the <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">wouldn't.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Given that, then
supervenience of moral properties on non-moral properties is
unproblematic, as is supervenience of color properties on non-color
properties. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="difference"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2.6)
The ancestral environment: a difference between color and morality</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In his argument,
Linville quotes Richard Joyce to raise another point: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Richard Joyce</B>
(quoted from Linville's argument) </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">“<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It
was no background </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">assumption
of that explanation that any actual moral rightness or wrongness
existed in the ancestral environment” (Joyce 2006, p. 183).</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
a theist could say: 'well, okay, color vision evolved because there
were green and red things in the ancestral environment, but there was
no morally wrong behavior.' </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That's
a more interesting objection, but it doesn't work, either: Let's take
a look first at the color case: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There
were actual differences in the environment – differences in
wavelengths reflected or emitted by different objects -, and so our
ancestors evolved color vision, which allows us to see objects with
certain different reflective properties, differently. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
the case of morality, and going by a possible evolutionary account,
the relevant environment was the social environment in which our
ancestors lived, and the differences their, say, protomoral sense
picked were differences in the minds of one another.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">As
our ancestors evolved, they gradually changed; in particular, their
minds and behavior gradually became more complex, and so did the
mental properties picked by what we might call their </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>protomoral</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
sense. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
a result, moral properties are the ones picked by the human moral
sense – or a sufficiently similar sense -, and those are
properties of humans and similar entities. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It's
debatable whether other extant animals have them. Can chimpanzees
behave immorally? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Regardless,
the point is that there is no reason for the properties that are
picked by our moral sense today to be the same properties picked by
the protomoral sense of an animal that lived 20 million years ago,
when there none of their behavior would be immoral, or morally right
– if it wasn't; the non-theist does not need to take a stance
on which animals can be morally good or bad; the point is that the
evolutionary account is compatible with the existence of morally good
behavior, morally bad behavior, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>This
is similar to the way in which many other biological systems evolve,
like – purely for example – recognition of conspecific
individuals or sexual attraction: trivially, there were no humans in
the ancestral environment before humans appeared, and yet humans have
the capacity for recognizing the faces of other humans better than
those of any other primate. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
humans normally feel sexually attracted to humans, not to something
that looks like our non-human ancestors – or much more than to
them, at least. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">So,
the point is that, when it comes to extant animals, many of the
properties that their faculties actually pick in their conspecifics
did not exist in their ancestral environment several million years
ago, but there were </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>similar
</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">properties,
which were picked by the faculties of their ancestors. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
those animals evolved, so did the properties their faculties were
picking. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
this objection, while more interesting, does not work, either.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There
is a possible semantic objection, though: someone might claim that
our moral language commits us to a claim of existence of a clear
cut-off point – a first </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#moral agents"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
agent</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>-,
while EN would result in gradual changes: no first sparrow, no first
human, no first tiger, and no first </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#moral agents"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
agent.</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>While
</FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="http://EN/"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>plausibly
yields that result – i.e., no first moral agent, but gradual
changes -, it would be up to the theist making the claim to show that
somehow our moral language commits us to such a claim. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
fact, that would make moral language different from language in most
other cases, when we talk about the world around us. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, plausibly there is no "first nanosecond" at which
a person is an adult – our language is not so precise -, there
is no "first lion", or "first parrot", and so on.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Furthermore,
if we gradually change the image of a car into that of an SUV on a
computer – which involves a finite number of steps -, plausibly
there is no first step at which the image is not the image of a car
(i.e., no first step at which that would not be a car if it existed):
the word 'car' isn't so precise.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Given
that none of the above results in error theories about cars, adults,
lions, parrots, sparrows, tigers, etc., nor does it imply we lack
knowledge about those things, nor does it cause any problems, the
burden is squarely on the theist if he claims that the moral case is
exceptional in a relevant sense. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="roadsofar"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>3)
The road so far</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
his </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#AEN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">AEN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
Linville claims that if </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true, then morality is a by-product of natural selection. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Given
the previous arguments, it seems non-theist objectivist can safely
grant that if </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true, then morality would be </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">product
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
natural selection, in the same sense in which, say, color vision is
the product of natural selection. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
the other hand, the term "by-product" is negatively loaded,
and also might be interpreted as a claim that morality would not be
adaptation but a side effect of other adaptations, which would be an
unwarranted assumption. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Whether
our moral sense is constituted partially of entirely of adaptations
is an empirical matter on which we shouldn't make assumptions. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
other than that, granting that claim does not seem to be problematic.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
aside, a theist might argue that if unguided evolution has happened,
then our faculties are generally unreliable. That kind of argument
fails as well, but it would be beyond the scope of this article to
show that. Instead, I will just point out that that would no longer
be a <I>metaethical </I>argument for theism. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="ontology"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>4)
Ontology </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Another
common theistic claim is that under non-theism – and thus,
under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#EN">EN</A>
– </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
that, somehow, on </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">there
is no 'ontological foundation' of moral properties – or values,
obligations, etc. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
allegedly have ontological commitments that make it incompatible with
the existence of moral properties, or at least would make it very
improbable that moral properties would exist, and/or that moral facts
would exist, or some similar variant. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
an introduction, let's quote a passage from Hume. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Hume</B></SPAN></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(from
Linville's argument) <BR></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">Here
is a matter of fact; but ‘tis the object of feeling, not of
reason. It lies in yourself, not in</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>the
object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be
vicious, you mean</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>nothing,
but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or
sentiment of</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>blame
from the contemplation of it. Vice and virtue, therefore, may be
compar’d to sounds,</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>colours,
heat and cold, which, according to modern philosophy, are not
qualities in objects,</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>but
perceptions in the mind. (Hume 1978, p. 469)</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Yet,
Hume mentions vice and virtue <I>alongside colors, sounds, heat and
cold. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
fact, Hume does not provide any good reason for distinguishing, say,
morality and color, in a sense that would be relevant in his
argument, so if a good metaethical case for theism could be based on
something like this, it's hard to see why one couldn't just make a
<I>metachromatic</I> argument for theism. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Linville
does not try to use Hume's points as part of the argument, but he,
Craig and others make other meta-ethical ontological arguments. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
in this section, I will take a look at some relevant ontological
issues; I will also </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
let's consider the matter of ontology in more detail: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="ontologysemantics"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>4.1)
Ontology, property identity and semantics</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Can
two terms, say 'property1' and 'property2' have different meanings,
yet pick the same property? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, does property identity require semantic equivalence of
the words picking a property – even if, perhaps, a
non-transparent semantic identity? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
answer to that question is relevant to the matter of what could
reasonably be expected from an ontology of color properties, moral
properties, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A
related and also relevant question would be: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Do
ontological accounts of properties require </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">semantic
closure</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
the relevant questions? </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, if a correct ontological account of color holds that the
property 'redness' is identical to the property of 'having property
a1-ness or a2-ness or a3-ness...or ak-ness', does that imply that "X
is red" follows from 'X is a1 or X is a2 or... or X is ak",
just by the meaning of the words? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Perhaps,
there is more than one usage of 'property' in philosophy; if so, the
answer to some or all of the previous questions in this subsection
might be different depending on the meaning of 'property'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
any event, I will not try to answer the aforementioned questions in
this article. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Instead,
I will assess different possibilities, concluding that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">regardless</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
what the answers are – within the main possibilities considered
in present-day philosophy -, theistic arguments trying to exploit the
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#open question"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Open
Question Argument</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or generally raise ontological issues, fail. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="color ontology"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>4.2)
Color ontology </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>An
ontological account of color would try to answer questions such as,
'What's greenness?', 'What's redness?', and so on. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Before
trying to address the matter, one might wonder: 'What <I>kind </I>of
answer should we be looking for?'</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, the question itself is not clear at all, though what is
clear is that there is no object 'redness' floating 'out there', so
to speak, but red objects. But once we've included objects with
certain reflective properties and visual systems/minds that can react
in certain ways to them, it seems nothing else needs to be added. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Still,
I will consider different alternatives, and then make a parallel
between the color and the moral cases, using the lack of a relevant
difference as a means to show why the theistic arguments are
confused. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
let's start with a potential ontological hypothesis about redness.
For instance, let's say that a proposed account is: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="redness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>B1</B>:
The property 'redness' is the property of emitting light in <B>r(l)</B>
wavelengths, or reflecting light in <B>r(l)</B> wavelengths under
conditions <B>n</B>, etc. [of course, the wavelengths r(l) and the
'such and such' conditions would have to be specified; let's assume
that they have been specified, to simplify the matter]. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Would
a <I>semantic </I>challenge defeat such an account, simply by
pointing out that the question remains open? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
other words, a competent English speaker may well rationally say 'I
know that an object reflects light in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>r(l)</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">wavelengths,
under conditions </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>n</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but is it red?'. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>No
amount of conceptual analysis will resolve the matter. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
that is enough to debunk such a proposed ontology, it seems that one
may just point out that color terms apparently cannot be reduced to
non-color terms without loss of meaning, and so, it seems – on
this understanding of 'property' -, that color properties can't be
put in terms of non-color properties. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
then again, if that's the case, it seems plausible no further color
ontology is required, apart from positing properties such as
blueness, greenness, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
so, then it seems that the non-theist can just provide a similar
reply to a question about </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ontology,
thus blocking any metaethical ontological arguments for theism. As
long as the answer works in the case of color without being a problem
for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://EN/"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then it seems it works in the case of morality as well, and moral
statements cannot be reduced to statements in non-moral terms without
losing meaning. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
the non-theist may simply posit – for instance – that the
term 'moral goodness' is not definable in non-moral terms, and leave
it at that – just as she can in the case of color. She might
even add the suggestion that moral goodness is some mental property,
which is also not a problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://EN/"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Perhaps,
someone might demand semantic closure while using other terms, for
instance 'horse' might mean the same as 'being with such-and-such
properties', and that involves a long description. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Similarly,
they might demand a description like that for moral or color terms. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
even if 'horse' can be described in that manner, we can then take the
terms in the description of 'horse' and repeat the procedure. In a
finite number of steps (there are finitely many words in any of our
languages), we're going to reach a point at which we can go no
further, and some terms would remain undefined, or defined in terms
of semantically equivalent terms. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
it seems that moral terms like 'moral goodness', or color terms like
'redness', can only be put – at best – in terms of other
moral or color terms respectively. That fact, however, is not at all
a problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
– </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
does not even have </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">anything
to do </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">with
whether </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
it seems that if semantic closure is needed, theistic metaethical
ontological arguments are blocked. The non-theist might simply point
out that moral terms can only be put in terms of other moral terms,
and that's it. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>What
if no semantic closure is required of an ontology of properties? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Then,
an account like </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>B1</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">may
or may not be true, but in any case, there are a few important points
to be made: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">First,
an account like </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">B1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">was
not available for most of the history of our civilization, and it
only became doable after considerable advances in physics, and the
introduction of technical terms. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Second.
if </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">B1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
– </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
something like it – is correct, it's clear that we </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">do
not need to posit any entity above and beyond our visual system,
brain, objects with certain reflective properties, and light –
we surely do not need a Supreme Color Commander, or any other weird
entity above and beyond what I've just described. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Third,
if nothing similar to </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">B1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
correct, there is still no good reason to suspect that one requires
any entity above and beyond our visual system, brain, and the light
that reaches our eyes from other objects. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Fourth,
in any event, in order to test such an account, we would need to rely
on human color vision, even if under controlled conditions: for
instance, in the case of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>B1</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we would need to rely on the human color vision in order to test
whether the proposed wavelengths </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>r(l)</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actually
match red. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="color supervenience"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>4.2.1)
Color and supervenience</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Someone
might posit that color properties, such as 'redness', are not
properties that can be described </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
terms of wavelengths and the like</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
but rather, they supervene on them. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
on this account, reflective (or emitting, etc.) properties aren't the
same as color properties, but, say, two objects with the same
reflective properties necessarily have the same color properties. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
on this account, there is also no need to posit any entity above and
beyond our visual system, brain, objects with certain reflective
properties, and light. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
it's difficult for me to see what </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>ontological
</I></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">difference
there is between this account and the account </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
terms of wavelengths, etc</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
fact, it seems to me that someone proposing the account in terms of
wavelengths, etc., and someone proposing the account that states that
color properties supervene on those properties described in terms of
wavelengths, etc., may well agree on the physics of light, of the
objects around us – moreover they may accept the same physics
theory, for that matter -, and the biology of our visual system. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
they're not positing entities above and beyond that to account for
color. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
it's not clear what they would disagree about; perhaps, the
difference lies in the way the word 'property' is being used, making
a difference </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">between
requiring semantic identity and not requiring it?</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Regardless,
we don't need to resolve any of that here: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Given
that – in any event – no entity beyond the objects around
our us with some reflective properties, light, and generally
properties and/or entities </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can
handle, needs to be posited, whether color properties are the same or
supervene on </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">properties
expressed in terms of wavelengths, etc</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
not a matter that concerns us here. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also,
the analogies with morality work as well on the supervenience
account, as on the '<A HREF="#redness">properties expressed in terms
of wavelengths, etc</A></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">',
account. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
example, with regard to the <A HREF="#open question">Open Question
Argument</A>, the question 'I know X has a property that supervenes
on the property of reflecting such-and-such wavelengths under
such-and-such conditions, but is X red?" is just as semantically
open as 'I know X has the property of reflecting such-and-such
wavelengths under such-and-such conditions, but is X red?'. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
from this point on, and just to simplify, I will take the example of
the account <A HREF="#redness">in terms of </A><A HREF="#redness">wavelengths,
etc.</A>, as an example of color ontology (unless otherwise
specified), in order to compare it with any proposed moral ontology,
but keeping in mind that we could always use the supervenience
account instead, or some alternative ontology that would still be
compatible with <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>.</FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="colorantirealism"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4.2.2)
Color antirealism</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might posit an antirealist color theory, and reject any ontology of
color, objecting to the analogy between color and morality. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to some of those theories, we can make true color judgments, we have
color knowledge, there is no error theory, etc., but there is still
no ontology of color to be found. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, if
a theist accepted a theory like that, a non-theist might suggest the
possibility of a similar moral theory, which the theist would need to
refute to make an ontological metaethical argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To be
clear, I'm not espousing any such theories. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Rather, I'm
addressing a potential objection by pointing out that a theist
espousing one of them in the case of color would have to also show
that no similar theory can work in the case of morality – else,
why assume there is a moral ontology at all? -, and it's hard to see
what kind of an argument they might make. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If the
bottle cap on my desk is blue without any color ontology to be found,
then why can't the Holocaust be evil without a moral ontology to be
found? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, those
color antirealist theories do not appear to be a viable option for a
theist defender of a metaethical argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There are
other antirealist theories, such as error theories. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to a color error theory, all statements like 'that cap is blue',
'that banana is yellow', etc., are false. But that would be difficult
to believe – not to mention, on theism, the problem of a
deceitful creator. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, it
seems that those aren't good options for a theist defender of a
metaethical argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There may
be other color antirealist views, but I will just point out that if
we can have color truths, knowledge, etc., without any color
ontology, then the question can be raised about morality too. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If,
on the other hand, there is a correct color ontology, then even if we
don't exactly know what it is, it remains the case that </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#color ontology"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">demanding
semantic closure isn't a viable option</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
whatever the correct ontology of color might be, all the
considerations I will make about </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#open question"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Open
Questions</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
related matters remain. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="moral ontology"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>4.3)
Moral ontology </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
a result of the evolutionary process, humans acquired the abilities
to pick some mental properties; for instance, we can tell, in many
cases, when someone is angry, in pain, or is happy, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
a possible evolutionary account of morality, humans also evolved a
faculty (or a combination of them) to pick some other mental
properties – which were relevant in social life -, as well as,
perhaps, some consequences of the actions, and/or some other social
relations. As our ancestors evolved, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#difference">so
did </A><A HREF="#difference">the properties that they were picking</A></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
a result, moral properties would be some of the properties that one
or some our faculties pick – which we may call our 'moral
sense' -, in the same sense color properties are some properties our
color vision picks.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
when it comes to moral ontology, we can point out the following: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">First,
given the complexity of our social environment, morality is likely to
be complicated, and we shouldn't expect that moral properties would
just be the same as properties picked by a non-moral term in
non-technical language, even </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">if
semantic closure</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
not required. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, even assuming that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">semantic
closure</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
not required, we shouldn't expect a simple account in terms of
properties described by non-moral, non-technical terms, like human
happiness, or anything like that. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Second,
given that psychology is much less developed than physics, we
shouldn't assume that a correct account in non-moral terms will be
available any time soon, even assuming that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">semantic
closure</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
not required. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
fact, it's not even clear that we have such an account in the case of
color; even if we do, it may well take centuries or more to develop
an ontology of moral properties, and it might take the development of
technical terminology, as in the case of color</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
to make the account manageable in terms of length. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
clearly, there is no burden on the non-theist to produce anything
like that. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
a theist might argue that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">no
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">account
will do, if </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true. But the burden is squarely on him. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Of
course, if </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">semantic
closure</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
required</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then it seems no correct account could ever be given in non-moral
terms, so unless new moral terms are invented, no correct account
beyond positing moral goodness, moral wrongness, etc. - or, perhaps,
equivalents in already existing moral terms -, can be given. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Third,
even if a correct ontology were given in technical terms, we
shouldn't demand that it would </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">semantically
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">close
the question</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
if we don't demand such closure in the case of color. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, if </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">semantic
closure is required</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
the case of morality and color</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
then it seems moral properties can't be described in non-moral terms,
and similarly color properties can't be described in non-color terms.
However, in that case, someone who accepts </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">may
posit that, say, moral goodness is some mental property that can't be
described in non-moral terms, and that would be it. There appears to
be no further question, if that's all one is asking. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Fourth,
in order to test any proposed ontological account, we would need to
rely on the human moral sense, even if under controlled conditions:
otherwise, we wouldn't know whether whatever matches the description
provided by the proposed ontology also is, say, morally good. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
case no </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">semantic
closure</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
required, there is a difference between color and morality in that
regard: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
the case of accounts such as </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>B1</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we need to measure wavelengths in order to test whether the proposed
wavelengths </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">r(l)</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actually
match red, whereas in the case of a proposed ontology of, say,
goodness, we would only have to test by our own moral sense that
there are no scenarios that present exceptions to the proposed
ontological account. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, we would only have to use our moral sense – even
if, perhaps, in some controlled conditions – to test whether in
any hypothetical scenarios in which A matches the description
provided in the proposed account of moral goodness, A is morally
good. To do that, we wouldn't need to create real scenarios, but just
test many hypothetical ones. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
that difference is not significant with regard to the matters at
hand, since it's only a difference in the way we test the proposed
account. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="open question"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>5)
The Open Question Argument</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">A
common argument against metaethical views that are often called
"moral naturalism" is Moore's Open Question Argument.<A HREF="#notemoore2">[5]</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The meaning of the
expression "moral naturalism" is very misleading, and the
Open Question is raised against any view that attempts to reduce
statements using moral terms to statements using non-moral terms,
without losing meaning. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
as <A HREF="#color ontology">explained</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><A HREF="#moral ontology">earlier</A>,
demanding <A HREF="#ontologysemantics">semantic closure</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">would
allow the non-theist who accepts <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
simply point out that, say, 'moral goodness' is not a term definable
in terms of non-moral terms; she might also posit that moral goodness
is a mental property. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Whether 'moral
goodness' can be defined in terms of other moral terms is a matter of
moral semantics, but irrelevant to the Open Question Argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
the other hand, if no <A HREF="#ontologysemantics">semantic closure</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
required, the Open Question Argument fails just because of that. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
either way, the Open Question Argument fails to present any
difficulty for a person who accepts <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Still,
just in case, I will make a parallel with color, showing that the
situation is similar in regard to the Open Question Argument. I will
use an ontological account of color based on <A HREF="#redness">reflective
properties, wavelengths, etc.</A>, but that's only an example: the
parallel I will make would similarly work on any ontological account
without <A HREF="#ontologysemantics">semantic closure</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="general considerations"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>5.1)
General considerations</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Thomas
Hurka</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#notemoore2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[5]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Especially
in Principita</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><EM><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN></EM><EM><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Etica</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></EM><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
Moore spent much more time defending his other non-naturalist thesis,
of the autonomy of ethics, which he expressed by saying the property
of goodness is simple and unanalyzable, and in particular is
unanalyzable in non-moral terms. This meant the property is
“non-natural,” which means that it is distinct from any
of the natural properties studied by science. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
with that criterion, someone might say that color properties are
"non-natural" because color language is <A HREF="#color ontology">not
analyzable in non-color terms.</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As
I explained </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">before</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
a question like "I know that an object reflects light in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">r(l)</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">wavelengths,
under conditions </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>n</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but is it red?", is open in the same manner as a question about
goodness is. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Are we talking about
reducing moral language to non-moral language with no loss of
meaning? <BR>If so, it seems that that's not doable, but the same can
be said about – for example – color language. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
should we accept that we need to posit a color ontology over and
above light, reflective properties, and all other properties that <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can
handle? </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It seems clear that
that would be confused. The confusion would only increase if we were
to also use the obscure term "natural" to say that color
properties are non-natural properties. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
any case, the point is that a claim that there is a moral ontology
over and above humans (or similar beings) and their minds just
because non-moral statements do not entail moral ones just by the
meaning of the words would be as confused as a claim that there is a
color ontology over and above light, reflective properties, and
perhaps some other properties that <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can
handle, just because non-color statements do not entail color
statements just by the meaning of the words. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="science1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>5.2)
Science, color and morality </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone might say
that color properties are "natural" properties because
they're the kind of properties studied by science, but moral
properties are somehow different. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Such a claim would
be very obscure at best: if "natural" properties are just
those described in non-moral terms, then why not just call them that
– instead of "natural"? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But let's let that
pass. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The crucial point is
that this sense of 'natural' <I>is not related to science at all: </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>With regard to
science and morality, once again the situation is very similar to
that of color, even if there is a considerable difference in
complexity – morality is, of course, considerably more complex.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It seems that humans often can
ascertain whether a certain behavior is morally good, morally bad,
etc., and they do that in an obviously finite number of steps. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If future scientists can come up
with a more precise description of moral goodness, etc. - or a
property on which moral goodness supervenes -, without semantic
reduction – something akin to color and wavelengths -, and
manage to develop an algorithm that allows them to ascertain whether
a behavior is morally good, etc., then a future supercomputer would
probably be able to ascertain what's morally good, bad, etc., much
faster than any human could, without the difficulties associated with
human weaknesses and propensities that the computer would not have. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of course, it's also conceivable
that no future scientists will ever figure that out, but that should
not be assumed. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover, the point is that apart
from the difficulty resulting from the complexity of the human mind,
there does not appear to be anything particularly salient in the case
of morality (or moral goodness, etc.), which would make moral
goodness beyond scientific understanding and/or detection. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">By
the way, the previous scenario (i.e., the supercomputer, etc.) does
not seem to be even incompatible with theism<A HREF="#notePoE">.[6] </A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Granted, scientists
would need to trust the human moral sense, at least until some kind
of controlled conditions, in order to try to describe moral
properties – or the properties on which moral properties
supervene – in some technical terms, figure out an algorithm,
etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, the same is
true if they want to make a machine that can distinguish colors –
they would have to rely on human color vision -, though the task
would be much simpler in that case. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Granted, also, moral
disagreement would be a difficulty for finding an algorithm, since
it's a lot more common than color disagreement. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, as long as
there is a species-wide moral sense, the task is not an impossible
one, even if sometimes it's difficult to make moral assessments: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Since reaching moral
truth is doable in many cases, that can be used to study moral
properties, as the human visual system can be used in the case of
color properties. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That would be <I>a
lot</I> of work, which might take centuries if not more. They would
need to use controlled conditions in many cases in which people
normally agree, use computers to process enormous amounts of data,
find causes of disagreement, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, that would be a
truly daunting task, but given a species-wide moral sense, again
there is nothing here but a difference in <I>degree</I> of difficulty
between color and morality, when it comes to the possibility of
scientific study.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Finally, someone
might claim that those properties that the computer determines, in
any case, would not be moral properties, but at most, moral
properties would supervene on those picked by the computer. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, with that
criterion, the same might be said about color detected by some
machine. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In any case, the
fact remains that there seems to be no relevant difference at all
when it comes to the possibility of scientific study of moral vs.
color properties: both are equally possible, even if the moral study
is much more complex. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Also,
it would be a mistake to believe that just because we need to use the
human visual system to study color, in a color ontology we need to
posit some extra entities or properties apart from light, surfaces
with reflective surfaces, and generally properties <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can
handle in the case of a color ontology. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Similarly,
it would be a mistake to believe that just because we need to use the
human moral sense to study moral properties, in a moral ontology we
need to posit an extra entities or properties apart from humans (or,
potentially, entities with similar minds), their minds, and generally
beings and/or properties <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can
handle. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Finally,
a theist might quote scientists saying that science can tell us how
things are, not how they </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I>ought
to be</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However, aside from
what scientists with some metaethical commitments may say about it,
if science can tell us what's red, then with a lot more work, it will
plausibly tell our successors what's immoral, and thus what they have
a moral obligation to do, and thus what they ought to do. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, it seems clear
that there is no difference between color properties and moral
properties with regard to what science can or cannot tell us about it
– at least, given sufficient scientific development -, except
for degree of difficulty. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I
will assess the matter of science and morality once again <A HREF="#sciencemorality">later</A>.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Filling the gap"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>5.3)
Filling the gap</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Perhaps,
a theist might claim that there is a relevant difference between
color and morality in terms of "filling the gaps", as Hurka
illustrates in the SEP<A HREF="#notemoore2">[5]</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
the case of water and H</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SUB></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">O.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Thomas
Hurka</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><A HREF="#notemoore2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[5]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Again,
however, Moore could respond. The property of being water is that of
having the underlying structure, whatever that is, of the stuff found
in lakes, rivers, and so on; when this structure turns out to be H</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SUB>2</SUB></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">O,
the latter property “fills a gap” in the former and makes
the two identical. But this explanation does not extend to the case
of goodness, which is not a higher-level property with any gap
needing filling: to be good is not to have whatever other property
plays some functional role. If goodness is analytically distinct from
all natural properties, it is metaphysically distinct as well. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In the case of the
color red – for instance – there is no structure of any
stuff, either, so there seems to be no difference in that regard. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Someone
might suggest, then, that t</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">here
is </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>some
</I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">property
that our color vision tracks, and which under normal conditions
elicits our judgment 'red', and </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>that
property </I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">is
the property of being red, or the property of redness. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
say that that's the case. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Then,
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>exactly
the same may be said about our moral sense and goodness. </I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might say that 'redness' is physical property, whereas 'goodness' is
not. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">I'm
not sure about the coherence of the physical/non-physical
distinction, but leaving that aside, that would be no problem,
either, since in the case of goodness, the property might be a </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>mental</I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
(or mental/consequential, etc.) one. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">We
don't need to get into the issue of whether mental properties are
physical ones here – whatever that means -, since the relevant
point is that </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>a
property would still be filling the gap: </I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">whatever
property our moral sense is tracking, and which under normal
conditions elicits our judgment 'morally good': </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>that
</I></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">would
be the property of moral goodness. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Granted,
that is not at all elucidating. But then again, the same applies to
the case of redness. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A
theist might object that that <I>still</I> does not close the gap, in
the case of moral goodness, from a semantic perspective. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>According
to this objection, someone might say "I know that behavior X has
the property our moral sense is tracking, and which under normal
conditions elicits our judgment 'morally good', but is X morally
good?"</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
suppose someone pondering a moral error theory might raise such a
question, but then again, the same can be said about someone
pondering a color error theory and the corresponding question about
redness. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
it seems that if <I>that </I>means that there is no semantic closure
in the color case, then the same applies to the moral case. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Perhaps,
someone might suggest that even someone who is not considering an
error theory might ponder the question in the moral case, but not in
the color case; they would have to make a case for it, but as it
stands, and given the previous considerations, it seems clear that
there is no difference in that regard. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
the next subsections, I will argue that moral goodness plausibly is a
mental property, but I will not claim </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">semantic
closure</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
terms of non-moral terms, of course. I will also make some
suggestions about other moral properties. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
before I go on, I'd like to reiterate that the non-theist has no
burden to do any of that. So, even if the hypotheses posited below in
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Filling the gap"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
subsection</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">were
incorrect, that would not affect the overall conclusion of this case
against metaethical arguments for theism, or the specific conclusion
of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#open question">this
section</A> – </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">namely,
that the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#open question"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Open
Question Argument</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
not provide any support for a metaethical case for theism. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="moral goodness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>5.3.1)
Moral goodness</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
we're told that a person is morally good</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
learn something about the person's character</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, we learn about her <I>mind</I>, we get an idea of how
she tends to act and what kind of dispositions to act she has, etc.
That may not give us a lot of detailed information about her mind,
but it gives us some. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
it seems that the same goes for individual morally good actions: that
a person's action is morally good is plausibly a claim about the mind
of the person carrying it out. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
it seems to me that moral goodness is a mental property, perhaps
involving attitudes towards others, care in choosing the means to
act, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
a good person would be one with a character such that she's
predisposed to generally do good actions and not bad ones, or
something along those lines – the details are difficult and not
important for the purposes required here. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>At
least, it seems clear that to say that an action is morally good is
to say <I>something </I>about the mind of that person. <BR>On the
other hand, it seems to me that actual consequences do not seem to
enter the equation: for instance, if agents A1 and A2 carry out an
action for which they have the exact same amount of information, the
same intentions, etc., the same expected results, etc., and the
action of agent A1 is morally good, then so is the action of agent
A2, even if – for some unexpected reason – the action of
A2 resulted in harm to third parties – for instance -, which
the action of A1 did not. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Of
course, that's just a hypothesis I posit, but whether or not actual
consequences enter the equation is irrelevant from the perspective of
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
it turns out that moral goodness is not a mental property but a
complex property including a mental component and a consequential
component – for example -, that's perfectly okay with </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
well.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
again, a theist might claim that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">all
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">mental
properties are a problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but that would no longer be a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">metaethical</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">argument
for theism. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="badness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>5.3.2)
Moral badness, moral wrongness, and immorality</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
case of moral badness seems similar to that of moral goodness: the
best candidate is a mental property. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
reasons for that are the same as in the case of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral goodness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
goodness</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so I won't repeat them. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,
as in the case of moral goodness, if it turns out that moral badness
is not a mental property but a complex property including a mental
component and a consequential component, that's perfectly okay with
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
well, as long as mental properties are no problem. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
for moral wrongness, it seems that the property of moral wrongness is
the same as moral badness, for any behavior, omission, attitudes: the
term 'morally wrong' applies to behavior, omissions, attitudes, etc.,
not to people and behaviors (unlike 'morally bad'), but it seems
clear that, when it comes to behaviors, etc., 'morally bad' and
'morally wrong' mean the same, so the properties are the same. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
same goes for immorality: it seems that, both for behaviors, etc.,
and people, the property of being immoral is the same as the property
of being morally bad. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>What
about, say, a morally bad political regime? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
those cases, perhaps more than one thing may be meant, depending on
context. <BR>For instance, the person making that assessment might be
saying that: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>a)
The leaders are behaving immorally by imposing such regime on the
rest of the population, or </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>b)
The system results in morally worse actions, in terms of seriousness
and number (or some combination of those), or </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>c)
Both a) and b)</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">There
may be other possibilities, of course, and those are difficult
matters, but in any event, none of that would be problematic for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="obligation"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>5.3.3)
Moral obligations, and 'ought'</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
we saw above, it seems moral </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral goodness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">goodness</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#badness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
badness, moral wrongness, and immorality</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">do
not seem to present a problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might suggest that 'ought' and moral obligations are a different
matter, and that that there is a problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
that case. But it would be up to them to show that mental properties
or, perhaps, combinations of mental properties and relations, etc.,
wouldn't be enough, and something else – over and above that –
is required. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
it seems that even </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">talk</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
(moral) 'ought' can be reduced to talk in terms of moral goodness,
moral wrongness, etc.; since </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">can
handle moral goodness, moral wrongness, etc., and no further property
is needed for a moral ontology, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">can
handle it. I will make a more detailed case for such semantic
reduction </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#isoughtreduction"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">later</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
for moral obligation, 'A has a moral obligation to do X', seems to be
equivalent to 'A ought to X', so it seems that that would not create
any problems for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
either, as long as 'ought' does not create them. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Still,
even if talk of moral obligation couldn't be reduced to talk in terms
of moral goodness, moral wrongness, etc., the burden would remain on
the theist to show that something other than mental properties or
complex properties involving mental properties and relations, etc.,
are required in a moral ontology. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="isought"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>6)
Prescription and description, 'is' and 'ought', and related matters </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Somewhat
related to but different from the <A HREF="#open question">Open
Question Argument</A>, a theist might raise issues like is/ought, or
description/prescriptions, and make claims like the following: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">C1:
Science only deals with <I>descriptive </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'is',
but not with </SPAN></SPAN><I>prescriptive </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">'ought',
so science cannot tell us what we </SPAN></SPAN><I>ought </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
do. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">C2: You can't derive an 'ought'
from an 'is'. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Some
theists give a number of different reasons why, allegedly, C1 or C2
would be a problem for <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
this section, I will take a look at the issues of is and ought,
prescription and description, and what science does, in order to
clarify the matters at hand, showing that there is no particular
difficulty involved – leaving aside practical difficulties due
to the complexity of human psychology, which aren't relevant in this
context, since accepting that human psychology is very complex is not
a problem for <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="sciencedescription"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>6.1)
Science and description</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
more or less common claim is that science can't tell us what we </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ought</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
do, but can only deal with what </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is.
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I've
already addressed the matter of science and morality </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#science1"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">earlier</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and will do so again </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#sciencemorality"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">later
in this section</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#sciencedescription"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">this
subsection</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
I will make other points about what science describes, or what
scientific descriptions entail. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>In
particular, I'm interested in the fact that science doesn't just deal
with what is, but also what </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>was</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>,
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>will
be, would be, will happen, would happen, happened, etc., </I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>what
we or other animals </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>feel,
</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>etc.
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
can easily be seen by looking a few statements that can be made by
science, or based on science. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
let's consider the following statements (I will leave the
'such-and-such' conditions unspecified for simplicity): </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>ST1:
[pointing at a glass of water]If we heat up that water to 100 degrees
Celsius, it </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>will</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>boil. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>ST2:
[pointing at a glass of water]If we heated up that water to 100
degrees Celsius, it </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>would</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>boil. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>ST3:
About 65 million years ago, a large asteroid hit the Earth, and
caus</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>ed</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>the
extinction of many species. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>ST4:
On such-and-such day, there </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>was</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>a solar
eclipse, visible from such-and-such regions. In other words, on
such-and-such day, a solar eclipse </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>happened,
</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>and
a person with normal human vision looking at the sky from
such-and-such regions </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>would
have been </I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>in
a position to see it. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>ST5:
On such-and-such day, there </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>will
be</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>a
solar eclipse, visible from such-and-such regions. In other words, on
such-and-such day, a solar eclipse </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>will
happen, </I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>and
any person with normal human vision in such-and-such regions will be
in a position to see it. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>ST6:
A billion years ago, there </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>were
</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>no
humans on Earth. Moreover, there </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>were
</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>no
other primates, either. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>ST7.
[pointing at Joe]If someone stimulated such-and-such parts of Joe's
brain in such-and-such manner, he </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>would</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>feel pain. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>ST8:
[pointing at Joe]If someone stimulated such-and-such parts of Joe's
brain in such-and-such manner, he </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>would</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>have a
headache. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>ST9:
[pointing at Timmy, a capuchin monkey]If someone stimulated
such-and-such parts of Timmy's brain in such-and-such manner, he
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I>would</I></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>have a
headache. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It's
apparent that all of this statements can be made based on
sufficiently advanced science. Someone might object to ST9, but they
would have to make a case for it, since it seems clearly
unproblematic. Biologists usually do deal with what's painful to
non-human animals. In any case, ST9 isn't even needed to make the
main points of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#isought"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">this
section</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
aside, I'll point out that at least some of those statements should
be understood as having implicit conditions: for instance, ST1 has
the implicit condition that we do not, say, increase the pressure to
prevent boiling. That kind of talk with implicit conditions is normal
both in science, and in daily life. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, we may say 'if you put the cheese in the freezer, it will
last for x days', with the implicit condition (among others) that the
freezer will not stop working. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">All
or most of this is probably rather obvious, but I included </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#sciencedescription"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
subsection</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
order to more clearly set the stage for later subsections of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#isought"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
section.</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="isoughtreduction"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>6.2)
Is and ought </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
this subsection, I will argue that any moral 'ought' or 'should'
statement is semantically equivalent to moral statements using only
'is', 'was', 'would be', etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
show that, I will consider some statements, in which the 'ought' and
'should' are moral ones (not, say, means-to-end ones), and compare
them with moral statements that do not contain 'should', or 'ought'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>O1:
Hitler ought not to have ordered the Holocaust. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>SH1:
Hitler should not have ordered the Holocaust. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I1.0:
Hitler behaved immorally by ordering the Holocaust. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I1.1:
Hitler's order to carry out the Holocaust was immoral. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I1.2:
Hitler's behavior consisting in ordering to carry out the Holocaust,
was immoral. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I1.3:
The action 'Hitler ordered the Holocaust' was immoral. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
seems apparent that each statement entails all of the others, </FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I>just
by the meaning of the words</I></FONT><FONT SIZE=3>. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, statements like 'O1 entails I1.2', or 'I1.2 entails O1'
are analytical, they're true just by the meaning of the words –
of course, defining 'O1', and 'I1.2' as before. Readers will as
always use their own grasp or moral terms to assess the matter, but
it seems very clear. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Other
statements about what someone </FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I>ought to have
done</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
or </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I>should have done</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
are handled similarly. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
let's consider the following statements: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>O2:
Bob ought to pay the rent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>SH2:
Bob should pay the rent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I2:
If Bob fails to pay the rent, he is acting immorally. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
before, it seems that 'O2 entails SH2' is analytical, and so are 'I2
entails O2', 'I2 entails SH2', etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might raise an objection like the following. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>But
let's say that O2 is true, and then someone kidnaps Bob's family,
credibly threatening to kill them if he pays the rent. Then, Bob
fails to pay, but he's not acting immorally, so I2 isn't true. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
problem with that kind of objection is that it fails to take into
consideration the </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>implicit
conditions </B></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
statements such as O2, I2, and SH2, and generally most moral
statements. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">More
precisely, if someone says that I2 is false in the alternative
scenario, they are interpreting I2</SPAN></FONT></SPAN> <FONT SIZE=3><I>without
</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">an
implicit 'ceteris paribus' clause that prevent that kind of
alternative scenario. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, they're interpreting I2 without the condition that his
family is not so threatened. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
under such unqualified interpretation, </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I>O2
is false as well</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
What might be true is something like 'Bob ought to pay the rent
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I>provided that (among other
implicit conditions) </I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">his
family is not credibly threatened if he pays.', but not an
unqualified 'Bob ought to pay the rent no matter what'. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
particular, the statement 'Bob ought to pay the rent even if he has
good reason to believe that his family will be killed if he does pay
the rent' is not true in the alternative scenario which states that
I2 is not true. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
yet other words, the alleged counterexample is making a distinction
between O2 and I2 by means of including </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I>different
implicit conditions</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"> </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
each of them. But that's not a counterexample. What the objector
would be doing is making a distinction between one possible
interpretation of O2 with some implicit conditions, and one possible
interpretation of I2 that has different implicit conditions, or none
at all. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
that matter, we might as well distinguish between different
interpretations of O2 itself, just by including different implicit
conditions in the two different interpretations. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
the objection misses the point. As long as the implicit conditions
are the same, then one is true if and only if the other one is, and
we can tell that – I claim – by the meaning of the words
alone.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notereaders1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[4]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
means that moral 'ought' and 'should' statements can be reduced to
statements that do not contain those terms, but 'is', 'was', 'would
be', 'will', etc., plus terms such as 'immoral', 'morally wrong',
etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might say that this is not much of a gain, or even that it's obvious.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
I'm interested in making this point as a means to set the stage for
later subsections in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#isought"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
section. </FONT></SPAN></A>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="isobligation"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>6.3)
Is, ought, and moral obligation</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
this subsection, I will argue that any moral statement like 'Agent A
has a moral obligation to X' is semantically equivalent to moral
statements using only 'is', 'was', 'would be', etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Given
the result of the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#isoughtreduction"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">previous
subsection</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
it's enough to show that statements about moral obligation are
semantically equivalent to moral 'ought' statements, though we may
add 'is' or similar statements as well. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#notereaders1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[4]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, let's consider the following statements: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>MO1:
Bob has a moral obligation to pay the rent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>O3:
Bob ought to pay the rent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I3:
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
Bob fails to pay the rent, he is acting immorally. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
two seem clearly equivalent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
we might consider the following: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>MO2:
Bob has a moral obligation to pay $4000 to Alice. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>O4:
Bob ought to pay $4000 to Alice. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I4:
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
Bob fails to pay $4000 to Alice, he is acting immorally. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Once
again, the equivalence seems pretty straightforward. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#notereaders1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[4]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Other
statements including the term 'moral obligation' can be handled
similarly. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="moralitydescription"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>6.4)
Morality, description, and prescription</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
tackle the matter of the distinction between prescription and
description. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
which sense of 'prescriptive' are moral judgments prescriptive? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Are
they not descriptive? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A
more or less common claim is that moral 'ought' statements are
prescriptive, whereas, say, color 'is' statements are descriptive. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
as we saw </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#isoughtreduction"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">before</FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
moral 'ought' statements can be reduced to moral statements including
only 'is', 'was', 'will be', etc., plus terms like 'immoral',
'morally wrong', etc. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
this would entail that statements like 'Hitler was a morally evil
person', or 'It is immoral for any moral agent to torture people for
fun', etc., are also prescriptive. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
they </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">look</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">descriptive.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>By
saying that, for instance, Hitler was a morally evil person, I seem
to be describing his character, even if I'm not providing particular
details as to why he was morally evil. So, it's not a detailed
description, but it looks like description nonetheless. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>What
about 'Bob ought to pay the rent?' </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
I argued </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#isoughtreduction"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">before</FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
that statement is semantically equivalent to 'If Bob fails to pay the
rent, he's acting immorally', which also looks like a description. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might claim that the 'is' form gives the wrong impression, but that
would have to be argued for. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
let's take a look at the matter from another perspective, even
without considering the is/ought equivalence: Commands, like 'Pay the
rent', are not true or false, but judgments like 'Hitler was morally
bad', 'You ought to pay the rent', and generally moral judgments,
are. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Some
philosophers might object to that, and claim that moral judgments
aren't true or false, and/or that they're not statements, but that
seems very implausible, at least given how people use the words. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might suggest that a moral judgment is a combination of a command and
a description of a state of affairs. But that would entail that only
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">part
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
a moral judgment is true or false, which is also implausible. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
same goes for, say, views that suggest that moral judgments are
partially or totally suggestions, or pleads, invitations, etc.,
instead of commands. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
addition to the previous points, it's clear that if moral judgments
were commands, or combinations of a command plus a description, etc.,
that would be of no help for a theistic argument, either. In fact, it
would be a problem for them. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Some
antirealist metaethical views hold that even though moral judgments
are true or false, they do not describe states of affairs or facts,
but instead they're some kind of expression of desires, hopes and/or
commitments to certain rules. Such views usually posit a deflationary
theory of truth, according to which even some judgments that do not
describe states of affairs can be either true or false. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">While
it would be beyond the scope of this article to analyze such views,
it seems clear that they would be of no help for any theist defender
of a metaethical argument. At least, no such defender has ever
posited any such views. Quite the opposite</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">actually,
since such views tend to deny moral facts, which would be
incompatible with theism. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
at least for the purpose of this article, we may rule out such views
as well. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
short, plausibly, we may rule out the views according to which moral
judgments are, totally or partially commands, pleads, suggestions,
invitations, etc. Moreover, we may also rule out both such views as
well as other anti-realist views that posit that moral judgments
don't describe states of affairs, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
least for the purpose of this article</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
on the basis that a theist defender of a metaethical argument is
committed to rejecting such views. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
then, it seems that moral judgments, like 'Hitler was morally evil',
or 'Bob ought to pay the rent', etc., describe states of affairs, and
do </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">involve
commands, suggestions, etc.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
the question remains: in which sense of 'prescriptive' are moral
judgments prescriptive? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>When
we make moral judgments, normally we are motivated not to behave in
the way we judge to be immoral, even if such motivation is
defeasible. When we do behave in a way we deem immoral, or when we
deem some of our past actions immoral, we feel guilt, regret, and so
on. Some other judgments, like, say, color judgments, do not normally
motivate us like that. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
that moral judgments motivates us appears to be a matter of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>human
psychology. </B></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
that matter, an assessment that, say, certain behavior will cause us
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">pain</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">suffering,
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">also
normally motivates us to avoid it, even though the motivation may be
defeasible. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Such
matters of human psychology and motivation do not seem to be a
problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
If a theist claims otherwise, he would have to argue for it, so the
burden would be on the theist. Still, in the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#motivation"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">next
section</FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
I will give further arguments against a claim that moral motivation
would be a problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
aside, a theist might posit that moral 'ought' judgments are
prescriptive in the sense that they're </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">about
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">commands
given to us by God. However, if he posits such a metaethical theory,
he would have the burden to show it's true. Moreover, I will later
show that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#semantic DCT"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">such
theories are not true</FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Alternatively,
a theist might say that even if moral 'ought' judgments aren't </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">about
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">commands,
moral obligations are in some sense constituted by God's commands.
That would also be a burden on the theist, though. Moreover, I will
later show that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#failure DCT"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">such
theories are not true</FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
either. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="sciencemorality"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>6.5)
Science and morality, part 2</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#science1"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Earlier</FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
I've tackled the issue of science and morality, in the context of the
color analogy, and the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#open question"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Open
Question Argument</FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Here,
I'd just further explain how confused the claim that morality is
somehow outside the realm of science is, at least if we accept –
as theists do -, that there is moral knowledge, moral truths, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Indeed,
moral assessments like 'Hitler was a morally evil person', or 'Bob
ought to pay the rent' </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moralitydescription"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">describe
some state of affairs</FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
as, say, 'Nazi uniforms were not red', or, say, 'Hitler was ill',
'Hitler had syphilis', and so on. If moral assessments are also
prescriptive, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moralitydescription"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that
is a matter of </FONT></SPAN></A><A HREF="#moralitydescription"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">human
psychology</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
thus can be tackled by science as well. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
is true that, in order to make a machine capable of assessing whether
someone is behaving immorally, or to find necessary and/or sufficient
conditions for immoral behavior, scientists would need to trust the
human moral sense, even if under certain controlled conditions, and
that would make the matter difficult. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that's
not different from other cases, like color or illness, </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">except</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">perhaps
in terms of degree of difficulty, which is not a relevant difference
in this context. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>How
could we, say, find out what wavelengths correspond to green light,
without trusting the human visual system in our experiments, even if
under controlled conditions? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>How
could we make a machine that ascertains the color of an object,
without trusting the human visual system in our experiments, even if
under controlled conditions? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">How
could we, say, ascertain that a person is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ill</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
without trusting human intuitions about illness, at least under
controlled conditions? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might suggest that we can ascertain illness so by looking at certain
patterns of behavior, or how the person looks like, or look for a
virus, or generally figure out whether some traits of that person
match the conditions established in a book or manual issued by a
professional association of physicians. <BR>However, and regardless
of how we go about that, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
would in the end rely on human intuitions to figure out which
conditions are illnesses. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
instance, if we have a manual that tells us that such-and-such
conditions are illnesses, we – i.e., some humans – need
to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">write
the manual first</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and in order to do that, we need not only to study such conditions,
but also </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
intuitively apprehend that they're illnesses.</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
it's not only color, illness and morality. In fact, even if we want
to ascertain whether there is a supermassive black hole in the center
of the galaxy, we need to make some observations, trust our
observations or the observations of others, and rely on theories that
were posited by other humans and tested in conditions in which they
had to rely on human faculties as well (e.g., to read the result of
the experiments). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Granted,
humans do not have a 'black hole detection mechanism', while we do
have the capability to intuitively apprehend color, immorality or
illness under some conditions, so there is a difference with regard
to how direct the connection between our intuitions and what we're
trying to figure out is, but my point is that more or less directly
or indirectly, trusting human faculties in science is inevitable, and
there appear to be no good reasons to exclude color, illness or
morality from the scope of science. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
brief, the claims that somehow moral 'ought' statements are beyond
the scope of science, and/or that somehow normative or prescriptive
'ought' are a problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">EN</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
are both baseless and false. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
a side note to finish </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#isought"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
section</FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
I'd like to point out that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">even
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">under
Divine Command Theories – which are all </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#failure DCT"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">false</FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but leaving that aside for the moment, and for the sake of the
argument -, there would be no reason why science wouldn't be able to
tackle morality, or to make a machine that can figure out moral
truth. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">After
all, moral assessments would </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">still
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">describe
certain state of affairs, and we would </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">still
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">have
the means to ascertain moral truth, in finitely many steps. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
scientists could – for instance – study how humans
normally make those assessments, use controlled conditions to find
out when something is interfering with the normal system, and so on,
and then try to make a machine that would be able to do the same. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">To
be clear, I'm not claiming that such a project would succeed. It
depends on how complex the matter is, but the point is that even DCT
do not entail the failure of such projects – a side note, of
course, since </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#failure DCT"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">DCT
are all false.</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="motivation"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7)
Motivation</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Another
issue that the theist might raise – perhaps, but not always, in
the context of the <A HREF="#isought">is/ought</A> issue – is
that of motivation. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That's
an issue usually raised by expressivists, quasi-realists, etc.
Theists are committed to the rejection of such anti-realist views, so
they're not in a position to make all of the arguments anti-realists
make. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
a theist might make <I>some</I> arguments, so I will consider the
matter to some extent: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="psycho"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.1)
Psychology, psychopathy, and morality</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
plausibly, as a matter of human psychology, humans normally feel
inclined to avoid behaving immorally, just as they're inclined to
avoid, say, pain, hunger, thirst, social shunning and/or ridicule,
predators, acting irrationally, eating rotten meat, and so on. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Some
of those aversions might be shared by all other species (e.g.,
aversion to pain), whereas others might not (e.g., aversion to eating
rotten meat), but in any event, those are matters of human
psychology. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
none of that is a problem for <A HREF="http://EN/">EN</A>: it's a
matter of human psychology. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
that matter, we can easily conceive that, as a matter of <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovian</A>
psychology, a zurkovian who assesses that she has a z-moral
obligation to do Y, normally is also motivated to do Y. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second,
a potential exception to the moral motivation in humans would be the
case of psychopaths. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
it's true that some humans with abnormal minds do not feel motivated
<I>at all</I> to do X when they sincerely judge that they have an
obligation to do X, that shows that the motivation is not always
present, even in humans. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
the other hand, it might be that any human who makes a sincere moral
judgment that he has a moral obligation to do X, feels a motivation
(even if very weak) to do X. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If
so, then that's a motivation that persists to some extent even in the
case of seriously abnormal minds, such as those of psychopathic
serial killers, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
would have to be argued for, but it would be an irrelevant point in
the context of metaethical arguments for theism, given that <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>
can handle it, either way. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="aliens again"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.2)
Aliens again </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Perhaps,
someone might say that </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">any
entity – </SPAN></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">human
or not – who makes a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">sincere
moral judgment that she has an obligation to do X, feels motivated to
do X, at least to some extent. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
l</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">et's
consider the following scenario: </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Millions
of years into the future, humans make contact with <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A>.
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Things
go mostly smoothly for the most part, despite some difficulties, and
after a few centuries of communication, on a joint scientific
mission, some zurkovian scientists tell some human scientists that
all humans behave z-immorally when they do X – for some X that
humans do </SPAN></SPAN><I>not </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">have
any moral obligation not to do -, but it's not a serious case of
z-immorality; it's a minor z-immorality. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Now,
the <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
question are the experts in z-morality. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given the evidence, and since
they find no good reason to believe that those zurkovians are lying,
the humans in question conclude that, in fact, all humans act
z-immorally when they do X. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Human scientists also come to
know, by similar means, that human beings are z-color 1, 2, and 3, or
z-color 1,2, and 5, or z-color 1,3, and 5. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Thousands of light years away,
and thousands of years later, some human colonies receive the
information with curiosity. <BR>Those humans rationally come to
believe that they are, in fact, z-color 1, 2, and 3, or z-color 1,2,
and 5, or z-color 1,3, and 5, and that they act z-immorally when they
do X. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Yet,
they feel no motivation</SPAN></SPAN> <I>at all</I> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
refrain from doing X. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Let's
now reverse the roles of humans and <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A>.
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It
might be that some <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">come
to believe that some of their actions are mildly immoral. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That belief may or may not be
true, of course. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
fact, I'm not even taking a stance on whether <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">could
be <A HREF="#moral agents">moral agents</A>; if required, we can just
stipulate that some humans </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>deceived
</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">some
zurkovians about that, for some reason. and the zurkovians didn't
figure it out. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
any case, the point is that those zurkovians feel </SPAN></SPAN><I>no
motivation whatsoever </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
stop doing the actions they believe to be immoral. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone might raise the issue of
the sincerity of the judgments. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
just as the humans were making sincere z-color and z-moral judgments,
even though humans can't see z-colors, and have no z-moral sense, the
zurkovians were making sincere </SPAN></SPAN><I>color </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">judgments
– even though they can't see colors, but z-colors -, and they
were making sincere moral judgments as well. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In short, there was no lack of
sincerity on anyone's part. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">True, zurkovians are just
imaginary characters I made up. However, that is not relevant. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
point I'm making here is that situation is conceivable, so plausibly
there is no </SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">semantic</SPAN></I>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">requirement
of motivation. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It
seems, then, that <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can
handle moral motivation without a problem, as a matter of human
psychology. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted, the theist may well deny
that moral motivation is a matter of human psychology. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
there appears to be nothing in our moral language requiring
otherwise, so simply </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>denying</B></I></FONT>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
it is a matter of human psychology fails to meet the burden of
showing that <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">even
has any difficulty handling moral motivation. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps, someone might object
that the zurkovians weren't making moral judgments at all. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According to this objection, in
order to make a moral judgment, it's necessary to have a certain
phenomenology associated with it, and zurkovians do not have that
phenomenology – or they do, but associated with z-morality, not
with morality. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I will consider that objection,
as well as another one, in the following subsection. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="phenomenology"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.3)
Moral phenomenology and moral judgments</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone might claim: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>O1</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a) A moral sense, with a certain
phenomenology associated with moral judgments, is required for making
moral judgments. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">b)
<A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">may
have that phenomenology – or a similar one -, but associated
with z-moral judgments, not with moral judgments.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
<A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
unable to make moral judgments. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c) Any agent, human or not, who
(sincerely) judges that she has a moral obligation to do X, feels
motivated to do X, at least to some extent. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, that objection would
seem to lead to moral anti-realism, which blocks any theistic
metaethical arguments, independently of other considerations. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That is because, if moral
judgments assert propositions, and asserting propositions is enough
for making moral judgments – i.e., they do not also involve a
certain attitude, feeling, etc. -, then it seems clear that no
specific associated phenomenology is required. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For that matter, a blind person
can assert 'my shoes are brown', and that is a color statement. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover – though not
required here -, the statement may be justified and true –
let's say he got the information from reliable sources. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Similarly,
a colorblind person can make the judgment 'that apple is red', and
that's a color judgment (and that may be true, justified,
etc.)<BR>Similarly, <A HREF="#z-color">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can
make color judgments, and humans can make <A HREF="#z-color">z-color</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">judgments,
and so on. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
same happens in the case of moral judgments, <A HREF="#zarkonians">z-moral</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">judgments,
and so on. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still, in any event, the color
examples, zurkovians, etc., show that this is not a particular
characteristic of moral statements. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, let's consider a somewhat
similar objection that might not lead to antirealism: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>O2</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a) A moral sense, with a certain
phenomenology associated with moral judgments, is required for
grasping the meaning of moral terms. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">b)
<A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">may
have that phenomenology – or a similar one -, but associated
with z-moral judgments, not with moral judgments.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
<A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">are
unable to grasp the meaning of moral terms. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c) Any agent, human or not, who
grasps the meaning of moral terms and sincerely judges that she has a
moral obligation to do X, feels motivated to do X, at least to some
extent. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Regardless
of whether that is true, the crucial point here is that O2 links the
phenomenology of a moral sense with grasping the meaning of moral
terms, and the latter with motivation, but that particular
phenomenology is a feature fixed by </SPAN></SPAN><I>human
psychology</I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
based on the </SPAN></SPAN><I>human moral sense</I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
other words, </SPAN></SPAN><I>human</I> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">psychology
would be fixing the referent, in the following sense: if O2 is true,
then any entity who grasps the meaning of moral terms has a
psychological makeup similar to that of humans in the relevant sense:
namely, she has a moral sense with a certain phenomenology. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
that is the case, then of course if that phenomenology involves
motivation </SPAN></SPAN><I>in humans</I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
it would involve them in any agent with the relevantly similar
psychology. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">For
that matter, a <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovian</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">might
say the same about z-morality, which would have a similar
phenomenology. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
none of this is problematic for <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>, since it's
again a matter of the psychology of the entity making the judgment. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="possibleevolutionary"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>7.4)
A possible evolutionary account</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">A
basic sketch of a potential psychological</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>,
</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">epistemic
and ontological</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
– </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">not
semantic – account, which handles motivation and is compatible
with <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>, might be as follows: </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a) Humans have an evolved sense
that allows them to track some properties in other humans. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It would also work on
sufficiently similar beings, precisely due to similarity; how
sufficient they have to be is a matter for future research. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b) When triggered, that sense
provides some motivation to act in certain ways, more specifically to
avoid some actions and perform others. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c) The properties in question are
plausibly mental properties involving matters such as concern for
other humans and – perhaps, by similarly – other beings. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In other words, those properties
are plausibly mental properties involving other-regarding mental
properties, and maybe some related properties and/or relations as
well. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">d) The causes of the evolution of
a sense picking those particular properties and not others are the
conditions in the evolutionary environment. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">e) As language developed, people
invented words that they may use when that sense is triggered; those
are moral terms.</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, moral properties would be
those properties, or – maybe depending on how we use the word
'property' - properties that supervene on them, but in any case we
would not have to add any further entity to an ontological account.</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
other words, an ontological account would not have to contain
anything but beings with certain kinds of minds – humans
suffice -, just as an ontological account of color needs nothing but
light, some objects with reflective properties, and generally
properties and entities that <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can
handle. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Conceivably,
other entities, such as <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovians</A>, may
have evolved a sense that is equally motivating to them and maybe
even feels just the same way when triggered, and that tracks similar
properties, but not quite the same properties. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, clearly moral knowledge
would not be a problem in that case, just as color knowledge is not. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As for semantics, a non-theist
does not need to provide a theory, just as a theist wouldn't have to,
if the theist were making no metaethical argument. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Furthermore, a non-theist does
not need to provide any psychological or ontological theory, either,
but I'm providing a sketch of a potential one as a means of showing
the challenges faced by the theist. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="semanticonto"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
the other hand, if a theist is making a metaethical argument for
theism and claims that there is something in the meaning of moral
terms that requires properties and/or beings </SPAN></SPAN><I>other</I>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">than
the ones the previous hypothesis could account for, he would of
course have the burden of showing that. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, the theist would have to make
a semantic/ontological metaethical argument, in the sense that they
would have to show that moral language is such that assertions such
as 'X is immoral', 'Agent A ought to Y', etc., entail the existence
of properties and/or beings that the previous hypothesis cannot
handle. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Moreover,
the above is not the only account compatible with <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>,
so the theist defender of a metaethical argument would have to argue
against </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>all
</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
them. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="roadsofar 2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>8) The
road so far II</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So far,
we've established the following points: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>1)</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Purely
epistemic challenges to moral knowledge under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">fail.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Indeed,
there are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#possibleevolutionary"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">accounts</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
moral knowledge compatible with </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted, a
theist might argue that such accounts would not really account for
moral ontology – e.g., that those accounts would entail,
plausibly, no moral properties. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
that would no longer be an <I>epistemic</I> challenge, but an
<I>ontological</I> one. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
also, a theist might make an argument against </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">all
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">knowledge
under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but that would no longer be a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">metaethical</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">argument.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>2)</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#open question"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Open
Question Argument</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">fails
to provide any support for any theistic metaethical argument. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>3)
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#possibleevolutionary"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Accounts
of moral motivation</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">compatible
with </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
available. <BR>Granted, a theist might raise a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#semanticonto"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">semantic-ontological
challenge</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
such accounts, but the burden is on them. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4)
Generally, it seems, the following options might be available to the
theist: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a)
A </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#semanticonto"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">semantic-ontological
challenge</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
those cases, the theist would argue that some moral sentences such as
'Agent A ought to do X', 'Y is immoral', etc., entail, by the meaning
of the moral terms, the existence of entities and/or properties that
accounts </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#possibleevolutionary"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">such
as the one I suggested earlier</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or any other account compatible with </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
cannot handle. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The kind of
entities and/or properties the theist might want to use might be some
kind of 'mind-independent value' (whatever that might mean), or
souls, or libertarian free will. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
the following sections of this article, I will address such attempts.
In particular, I will focus on Linville's </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#personal dignity"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">'Argument
From Personal Dignity</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'
and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#psychology"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">some</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#materialism"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig's</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><A HREF="#freedom"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">arguments</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
examples, but I will make general points that apply to any potential
variants of their arguments, and to a number of other arguments
claiming that moral language commits us to the existence of similar
properties and/or entities. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While I
can't of course address all possible arguments theists might ever
come up with, my objective is to present counterarguments that –
perhaps, with some minor adjustments – will deal with all
present-day ones, or any similar variants, and a few more
possibilities as well. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b) An
empirical challenge: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In this
case, a theist might make one of the following arguments: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">i)
If </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">were
true, something like a species-wide moral sense would not have
evolved</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ii)
If </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">were
true, even if a species-wide sense tracking some mental properties
relevant in social life evolved, that sense would be different from
what the moral sense actually is. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">iii)
As a matter of fact, if </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true, then humans just don't have such a sense, and the properties
that our respective apparently moral senses are tracking vary wildly
from human to human. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 3cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">iv) The
disjunction of i), ii) and iii) is true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Those
are not at all common arguments raised by theists, but still, I will
address the matter of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#heroism"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">heroism</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and – just in case – </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#disagreement"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">disagreement</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted, in
the future, some theists might raise alternative variants I've not
addressed, but at least, this article should cover present-day
arguments, and a bit more. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="personal dignity"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>9)
Linville's argument from personal dignity</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Back to Linville's arguments, he
makes an ontological metaethical argument based on "personal
dignity". </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I will address his argument in
this section, but I will also make a number of general considerations
that apply to other theistic metaethical arguments based on moral
ontology. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="reasons"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>9.1)
"Why is that immoral?"</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A question like that is common in
moral discussions. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For instance: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Tom</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
Same-gender sex is immoral. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Alice</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
Why is that immoral? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
asking that question, Alice – and generally, the person asking
the question – is asking for </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>reasons</I></FONT>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">as
to why it's immoral.<A HREF="#notesamegender">[7]</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, the discussion or debate goes
on, and the person trying to persuade someone, tries to give reasons
that would be accepted by the other person. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, that reason-giving
cannot continue indefinitely, since the discussion has a finite
duration.</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It might be that the disagreement
will persist, but the idea is to manage to present reasons for one's
moral assessment that the other side will find persuasive, appealing
to commonly shared intuitions. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Theists are not in a better
position to do that, of course. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For instance, if a theist said
'That is immoral because Yahweh says it is', his interlocutor might
question both the existence and the trustworthiness of Yahweh. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If a theist says 'That is immoral
because God says it is' meaning 'That is immoral because an
omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being says it is', then a
question would be: 'Why do you think so?', and the person making the
claim would not only have the burden to of showing that some
<I>omnipotent, omniscient </I>entity exists and makes such a claim,
but – among other things -, the burden of showing that such
entity is <I>morally good – </I>furthermore, that he's
plausibly morally perfect -, and even then, that God plausibly has no
mysterious reasons to lie – even though he somehow mysteriously
created a world with pain, suffering, moral evil, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In any case, and leaving that
aside, actual moral debates are about <I>reasons</I>, not about
ontology – at least, when they're not confused -, and they
don't try to reach some ontological bottom so to speak. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, that's as far as daily life
goes. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On the other hand, a theist
defender of a metaethical argument for theism might demand an
ontological account of morality from the non-theist. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">He might ask, for instance. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="C"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Q1</B>: Why are actions in
category <B>C</B> immoral?</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Here, 'category <B>C</B>' is say,
instances of people torturing other people for fun. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Outside ontological debates –
in daily life -, that would be a <I>very </I>odd thing to say. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">What people normally try to do in
the case of moral debates in daily life is to frame the matter in
terms that would allow their interlocutors to ascertain, by their own
lights, that a certain specific, concrete behavior is or was immoral,
or that a certain category of behaviors only contains immoral ones,
etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
daily life, in the case of category </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#C"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>C</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
we </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>already
reached </I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
clear moral truth, so the question would be puzzling. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A perfectly fine reply would be
'it's obvious; what else do you need?'</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There is no need to keep delving
any further, or try to develop an ontology. </FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Yet,
the theist in this case is not asking a usual, daily life question,
but demanding some ontological account from the non-theist, which is
puzzling. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
there is no burden on the non-theist to provide any ontology of
morality – or of color, for that matter -, as I explained
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral ontology"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">earlier.</FONT></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Moreover,
there is a serious problem with the insistence on questions like </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#C"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Q1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
which we can see by means of taking a look at the color case. Let's
consider the following question. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Q2</B>: Why is that object
over there, that looks obviously red to us, red? </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">What
</SPAN></SPAN><I>kind </I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
answer would be expected? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's said someone replied
something like: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>R2:
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
object over there, that looks obviously red to us, is red because
under such-and-such conditions, it would reflect such-and-such
wavelengths (of course, they might also clarify both 'such-and-such'
in great detail). </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But then, for that matter,
someone might ask: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Q3:
</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Why
is that object over there, which under such-and-such conditions,
would reflect such-and-such wavelengths, red? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>R3</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Any object which, under such-and-such conditions, would reflect
such-and-such wavelengths, is red. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Q4</B></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Why is it that any object which, under such-and-such conditions,
would reflect such-and-such wavelengths, is red? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">And so on...</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It seems that, even in the case
of color, and despite a considerable advanced science, there is no
bottom to be reached. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
it's not clear that any end </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
reached, ever, if someone just keeps asking. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Perhaps,
that's not the answer the theist is looking for, but one that
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">semantically
closes</SPAN></I></FONT></A><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"> </A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><A HREF="#ontologysemantics">the
matter</A>, in the moral case. <A HREF="#color ontology">But there is
no burden on the non-theist.</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
in the case of color, we may ask: What </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">kind</SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
account would help in the case of, say, Q2? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Q2</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Why is that object over there, that looks obviously red to us, red?</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Again, an issue is: what <I>kind</I>
of answer is the theist even looking for? </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I'll
come back to these matters </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#bottom"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">later</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
after some considerations on Linville's "personal dignity"
case: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="bayoneting"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>9.2)
Bayoneting alien cyborgs for fun</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As
part of his case in support of a <A HREF="#intrinsic">'mind-independent
value'</A>, Linville uses the hypothetical example of soldiers
bayoneting babies for fun, defending the hypothesis that an
ontological account of the moral wrongness of the actions of the
soldiers requires positing some property in the </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>babies.
</I></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Linville</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
(p. 419, 420)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>Thomas
E. Hill (1991) offers a potentially usable model </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>here.
He asks, if we do not think that, say, natural environments or works
of art enjoy moral standing in their own right, might we explain our
“moral unease” on contemplating their </I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>destruction
by asking the question, “</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>What
sort of person would do a thing like that</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>?”
Our attention is thus shifted from a question of rights or direct
duties owed anyone or anything, to an assessment of </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>character</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>.
Surely, an even harsher judgment is appropriate regarding
Dostoevsky’s soldiers. Perhaps some combination of those
mentioned can work together to arrive at the conclusion that
infanticide is impermissible. But such answers, even taken together,
seem altogether unsatisfactory. Surely, if bayoneting babies for fun
is morally wrong, the wrongness must be explained chiefly in terms of
what is done </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>to
the baby</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The word '<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>character'</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>seems to imply a more or
less permanent or enduring set of dispositions in the perpetrator,
and a claim that a particular action is immoral does not seem to
entail that. While in the case of soldiers bayoneting babies for fun,
it seems that those soldiers do have that enduring set of
dispositions – i.e., they're evil -, but even people who aren't
generally bad may sometimes carry out immoral actions.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
I don't think that a general ontological account in terms of
character would be correct – even though if it is, character is
something that </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">EN</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">can
account for, so there is no need to deny it, either. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
the other hand, I will argue that there is no need to posit some
property in the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>baby</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
an ontological account of the moral wrongness of the soldiers'
actions. Furthermore, I will argue that such an ontological account
would be erroneous. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">More
precisely, it's the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>mind</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
the soldiers during their actions – and, perhaps, leading to
them – what any correct ontological account of the moral
wrongness of them has to point to. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
is not to say that I'm objecting here to the claim that babies have
the right not to be bayoneted for fun by soldiers. I'm not, but just
objecting to including 'rights of the baby' in any ontological
account of the immorality of the soldiers' actions. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="abc"></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">More
specifically, the position I'm suggesting here, as an example of an
account compatible with </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
is the following: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#chimps"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[8]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a)</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
judgment 'Babies have the right not to be bayoneted for fun by adult
humans'</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#chimps"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[8]</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
follows from 'If an adult human bayonets a baby for fun, then the
adult human is behaving immorally', by the meaning of the words. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b)</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
property we are identifying when we say – for instance - 'It's
immoral for an adult human to bayonet babies for fun' is </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>not
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
property of the babies at all, but a property </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>of
the soldiers – </I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
their minds, more specifically. In other word, the immorality of the
soldiers' actions is, from an ontological perspective, a mental
property of the soldiers who are acting: in other words, the claim
that their behavior is immoral identifies a property of the soldiers'
minds, not a property of the babies. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
consider the two claims: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Point
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a)</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">seems
to be clear enough.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notereaders1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[4]</FONT></FONT></A>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As
for </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>b)</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
t</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>he
</FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">kind
of beings the soldiers are harming </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>as
far as the soldiers can tell </I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">does
matter from a moral perspective in this context, but that's because
of </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>the
mindset of the perpetrator.</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>To see that, </FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">let's
consider the following scenario</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>:
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Some
very advanced aliens have reached Earth, and are studying Earth's
biology. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>They're
particularly interesting in humans, they send some cyborgs to take a
closer look. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
particular, woman-looking cyborgs and baby-looking cyborgs are there,
instead of women and their babies. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
cyborgs are mostly human, including blood, organs, etc. However, they
have no human brain, but a computer instead. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>They
mimic babies' reactions well enough to fool the soldiers, who have
never encountered alien cyborgs, and they don't even have a concept
of such thing. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
they cyborgs feel no pain, no fear, etc., and do not suffer at all
when bayoneted, and the computer that works as a brain is
well-protected, encased in armor – but the soldiers don't try
to bayonet the heads. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
the soldiers have no way of telling that those aren't babies, based
on the information available to them at the moment. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>After
the soldiers leave, the aliens retrieve their cyborgs, discard the
biological tissue, and then grow new tissue. No entity suffered, but
the soldiers enjoyed themselves very much, since they really liked
bayoneting babies for fun, and they had the same experiences as if
they had been bayoneting babies for fun, down to the belief that they
were, in fact, doing so. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>No
babies were harmed in the previous scenario. No being suffered at all
at the hand of the soldiers. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">However,
it seems clear that </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>the actions of
the soldiers were just as evil as the actions of those who actually
bayoneted babies for fun. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
it seems clear that t</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">he
immorality is in the mind of the soldiers, not in some
'mind-independent value' (whatever that means) of the baby. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Of
course, it's not the case that the wrongness is in the harm the
soldiers do to themselves – if any. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
would be a false theory. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#badness">whatever
property our moral sense tracks and normally elicits our assessments
</A><A HREF="#badness">'morally wrong'</A></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
it seems to be a mental property of the perpetrator. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>When
doing ontology, we shouldn't confuse other-regarding mental
properties of the minds of the perpetrators with actual properties of
other minds. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
particular, the fact that, as far as the soldiers can tell, they're
bayoneting babies – and not alien cyborgs that cannot suffer –
of course makes a big moral difference. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
from an ontological perspective, that's still a difference </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>in
the mind of the</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>perpetrators
– </I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">even
if it's a difference in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>their</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">beliefs
about the targets of their actions -; as long as the perpetrators'
mental states are </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>the
same</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
the moral wrongness is </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>the
same. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">While
the attitude that the perpetrators have </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>towards
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">entities
that, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>as
far as the perpetrators could tell based on the information available
to them</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
have such-and-such properties, relations, etc., is morally relevant
in many cases, such entities do not need to be present or even to
exist for the actions to be immoral. Moreover, the degree of
immorality depends only the perpetrators' minds, not on the actual
presence of any other entity. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
said, if that is not the case and the previous analysis is mistaken,
then that is not necessarily a problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
either: for instance, if it turns out that moral wrongness of an
action is not a mental property of the actor but a complex property
including a mental component and a consequential component, and/or
involves relations, etc., that's fine with </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
well, since those properties can be accommodated just as easily as
any complex mental property. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Of
course, a theist might argue that all mental properties are a problem
for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://EN/"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but that would no longer be a metaethical argument. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,
a theist might argue that some property other than any of the ones I
mentioned above is required </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">–
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">as
Linville does, when he posits </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#intrinsic">mind-independent
value</A> (whatever that means, if anything)</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">-,
but no good reason to suspect that that is the case has been
provided. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="terminator"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>9.3)
Evil mathematicians vs. alien robots</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
consider another example; Linville constructs a scenario in which you
parked your car near the Mathematics Department, and when you come
back, it turns out that some people left the car on blocks and
painted theorems on it with graffiti, and so he asks whom the
delinquents wronged. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Linville</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(p.
419/420)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">But,
this side of the Bay area, we are not likely to find people
suggesting that they have wronged </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>the
car</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">, done it an injustice or
violated its rights. Cars are not plausibly thought to have moral
standing – not even Bentleys. Rather, we might suppose that the
wrongness of such vandalism stems from the violation of a direct duty
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>to you </I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">to
respect your property rights or the like. And that direct duty
carries with it an indirect duty </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>regarding
</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20">the car.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First,
let's suppose that, before the mathematicians vandalize the car, the
owner dies of a heart attack, leaving no descendants. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">Furthermore,
let's suppose that it's less expensive for the city to destroy that
old car than bothering selling it. Hence, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>nobody
was harmed. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Yet,
the mathematicians did just the same. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">Of
course, readers will make their own assessments, but I maintain, once
again, that their actions </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>are equally
immoral as if the owner had been alive. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might raise issues about an afterlife, and duties to the dead owner,
or duties to the city or state. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
let's consider the following variant: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
suppose that the apparent car is no car at all. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Instead,
it's an alien robot that looks like a car, left there by an alien
robot that looks like a human, and which is studying humans. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
car's skin is just for show, and can go back to its initial form
without a problem – i.e., there was no damage. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
the attack on the fake car actually </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>helps
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
aliens gather information about human behavior. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>By
the way, the aliens that sent the robots do not find the actions at
all bothering. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
them, it's just more data, and they're content with that. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>No
one was harmed. No one suffered. Nothing suffered. No car was
damaged. No robot was damaged. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It's
true that the situation of those humans fooled by aliens might elicit
some sympathy from some of us, but I would say that the conclusion
that the mathematicians acted just as immorally as in Linville's
example, is clear. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>At
any rate, we can always hypothetically have the mathematicians
abducted by the aliens and put in a holodeck without their knowing,
and reach the same conclusion: in that case, the holodeck does not
need to be perfect, but just good enough so that the mathematicians
with the same mental states – including attention to details,
of course – as in Linville's scenario, can't tell the
difference. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Generally,
the point here is essentially the same as in </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#bayoneting"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
'alien cyborgs' case</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
– </FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">namely,
that the moral wrongness is in the mind of the perpetrator, and no
other entity needs to be posited. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="wronged"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>9.4)
Someone has been wronged</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Sometimes
we can truthfully claim that A has </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>wronged
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">B.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might ask: 'What to make of that, if it seems that actions would be
just as immoral if no one had been wronged, but A had not been in a
position to tell the difference (e.g., holodecks, cyborgs, etc.)?'</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
then, an adequate reply would be: 'It's a complex claim, buy why
would that be a problem?'</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
claim that A wronged B is a complex claim, but we don't need to
introduce any further entities in any ontological account. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
properties required for the claim to be true seem to be: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>1)
A complex mental property of A; he acted immorally, and this
particular case of immorality involved either a deliberate attempt to
harm B, and/or failing to care about her in some way. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>2)
B is a moral agent. Again, that's a property of B's mind. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">3)
It </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I>might
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">also
require certain effects on B, or social effects at least. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It's
not entirely clear to me, though.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
say that A intends to kill B, just for fun, but fails utterly, does
no damage to anyone, and neither B nor any other human ever finds
out. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Surely,
A acted profoundly immorally. But did A wrong B, or tried to wrong B
but failed? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Regardless,
there seems to be no difficulty accommodating any of those properties
under </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="trackingmental"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>9.5)
Tracking mental properties: direct tracking, indirect tracking, and
ontology</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>At
this point, someone might raise the following questions: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: auto; page-break-after: auto">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>1)
Isn't it clear that, in our moral experience, we need to keep track
of complex networks of social relations, obligations of one person <I>to</I>
another, and so on? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>2)
Doesn't that show that the correct ontology of moral properties such
as 'moral badness', 'moral goodness', or 'moral wrongness' does not
exclusively involve mental properties of the people who are morally
good or bad, or who carry out actions that are morally good, wrong,
etc., but at least relations, consequences, etc.? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
answer to the first question is <SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>yes,
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">but to the second one,
it's </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>no. </I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>We
track mental properties indirectly, by means of behavior. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, in order to ascertain that someone is in pain, or afraid,
or that they have certain beliefs, we generally take a look at how
that person behaves – including, but not limited to, statements
about herself. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Granted,
there are oth<SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">er a few other
ways in which we might ascertain or try to ascertain that a being has
a certain mental property, in some cases: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">For
instance, A might tells us that B has mental property P. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
but that generally is also an indirect way of looking at behavior.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notetelepath"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[9]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Generally,
the fact is that we track mental properties that may regularly differ
from human to human by means of observing behavior. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
if the property 'moral goodness' is a mental property, then plausibly
the way to track it is by observing behavior. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>And
while we can learn that certain behaviors are morally good –
for instance – after observations of what other behaviors
they're regularly connected to, there plausibly are behavioral cues
that normal humans can all intuitively track – else, it's
difficult to see how we would be able to learn more. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
when it comes to moral ontology, what we need to look for is not the
properties that we track as a means of indirectly tracking yet other
properties, but the latter – the ultimate ones, in a way. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">What
the examples in the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#bayoneting"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">previous</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#terminator"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">subsections</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">show
is that, plausibly, moral wrongness – or moral badness,
immorality, etc. - is a mental property of the perpetrator, and
shouldn't be explained, from an</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ontological
standpoint,</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
terms of rights of the victims, or any other properties of the
victims. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, moral badness is in the mind. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Similar
considerations can be used in case of the property 'moral goodness'</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Other
properties such as justice, or fairness, may require further
analysis, so I'm not making a claim that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">all</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral
properties are like that. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
that's unproblematic, since </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">does
not have a problem with n-valued properties like social relations,
complex properties involving mental properties of many people, and so
on. Although I'm not sure why that would need to be included in an
ontology, that would not be a problem, either. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="attempted"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>9.6)
Attempted crimes and punishments</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might suggest that if moral wrongness is in the mind of the
perpetrator, then the law should punish attempted crimes just as much
as committed crimes. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Similar
considerations might be raised in cases of negligence. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
actually sounds rather plausible, though I suppose there might be
alternative possibilities. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">For
instance, generally, we </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#trackingmental"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">track
mental properties – including moral properties – by
behavior</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
average, failed crimes plausibly show less commitment to committing
such crimes than successfully committed ones – i.e., he tried,
but on average, he probably tried less hard. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
guess it might be argue that that might justify somewhat lesser
punishments in some cases. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
plausibly the level of commitment is usually better ascertain on
other grounds only, so I'm not sure that that's a significant factor.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>With
regard to negligence, acts of negligence that do not result in
victims are plausibly, on average, acts of less negligence than those
that do. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
as before, I'm not sure that that's a significant factor. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
any case, those considerations are about lesser punishments </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">because
of different mindsets in the perpetrators</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so that does not affect any of the considerations in the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#bayoneting"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">previous</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#terminator"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">subsections</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
remains clear to me that the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#bayoneting"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">cyborg-bayoneting
soldiers would be acting as immorally as the baby-bayoneting
soldiers</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and the same goes for other cases. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
addition to the above, when it comes to punishment, there is another
matter to consider: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Punishment
is costly. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Prior
to organized judiciary systems, plausibly it would not have been
immoral for a victim of serious negligence – for instance –
to impose <I>some </I>limited punishment on the perpetrator. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
perhaps some other people would have had a moral obligation to assist
on that. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
the other hand, with no victims of the negligent act, it's more
difficult to see that others would have had the obligation to engage
the perpetrator, at least in many cases. There are always some risks.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Translated
to this day, a judiciary system substitutes private retaliation, but
a tendency like that might remain. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
it's not clear that it's justified now that the risks of punishment
are usually less severe. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That's
a highly speculative hypothesis about human psychology, and I'm no
way claiming it is true. I'm just speculating about some
possibilities, but in any case, they're not related to the matter at
hand, which is that given the same mental state of the perpetrator,
the immorality is the same. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
much seems clear. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="moral obligations"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>9.7)
Moral obligations</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">With
regard to moral obligations, it seems to me that they too can be
accounted for in terms of mental properties of the person having the
obligation. I already argued for a semantic reduction to other moral
statements </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#isobligation"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">earlier</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="moral rights"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>9.8)
Moral rights </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
the case of moral rights, a possible ontological account would be
that rights are some mental properties of the agent having them, and
that would be fine under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
the other hand, there is an alternative: it may well be that a right
of an agent should </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
included in a correct ontological account of moral properties, but
rather, it can be accounted for in terms of certain </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral obligations"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
obligations</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
other agents, and so no further property needs to be included in an
ontology. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="wouldntmatter"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>9.9)
Alternatives under evolutionary naturalism</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">An
important point here is that even if my counterarguments so far
failed to show that, say, 'moral wrongness' is a mental property of
the perpetrator, that would not be necessarily be problem</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
morality under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Instead
of a complex mental property, the property or properties our moral
sense is tracking and which usually elicits our judgments 'immoral',
'morally wrong', etc., might be a combination of complex mental
properties of the actors and mental properties of their victims, and
perhaps some relations between them. That would be fine under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">too.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
it would be up to the theist to show that none of those properties or
relations can plausibly account for moral properties. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
aside, let's assess a crucial claim about something Linville and
other theists call 'mind-independent value'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="intrinsic"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>9.10)
Mind-independent value? </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
explained </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral ontology"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">earlier</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there is no good reason to suspect that there is a moral ontology
just around the corner, or that the simple hypotheses presented so
far are true. <BR>So, even if the non-theist has no ontological
account of morality, that's on its own not a problem: the theist may
simply point out that plausibly, it would take centuries to figure
things out. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover,
even if the theist presents a coherent ontological account, they
would have to refute something like the evolutionary-mental
properties account I sketched so far, and even then, they would have
to refute many other possibilities before they have a case. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still, in
this subsection and the following one, I will assess Linville's
ontological account: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Linville
defines 'intrinsic property' of a thing as one that does not involve
any essential reference to any other thing, which means the same
(according to Linville's usage) as being a non-relational property,
and which entails (according to Linville) mind-independence. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">He gives
the example of market value to exemplify that a property that is
determined by what others are willing to pay – that's not an
intrinsic property. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then,
Linville's claim is that humans have what he calls 'dignity'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While I
would say that humans in many cases have dignity, I would also say
that 'dignity' does not mean what Linville claims: rather, it also
seems to be a mental property, and it does not seem to have to do
with anything like 'intrinsic value'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As I also
explained earlier, an ontological account of why an action is morally
wrong need not – and should not – include any references
to properties of the victim, in case there is one. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover,
even if that point about moral wrongness were incorrect, mental
properties of the victims would qualify, it seems, as <I>intrinsic
properties</I>, so if the correct ontological account involved mental
properties of the perpetrators and of the victims, that still does
not require anything beyond mental properties, so the matter is still
a psychological one. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In addition
to all of the above, the claim of 'intrinsic value' is actually
difficult to make heads or tails of. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">What would
that even mean? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>a) </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
claim that person A values person B is unproblematic, but is not a
moral claim.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>b)</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
claim that every person ought to value person B is a moral claim that
appears to be equivalent to saying that, for every person P, if P
does not value person B, then P is being immoral. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>c) </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
claim that person B ought to be valued is somewhat more difficult to
understand. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps, on
a charitable interpretation – which may well be correct –
is that they mean the same as in b), and that is fine. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On the
other hand, the person making the claim might be basing it on some
odd and mistaken ontology; if so, asking for clarification would be
in order. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>d) </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
a claim that humans have mind-independent value is frankly difficult
for me to make heads or tails of. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If the
claim only meant that every moral agent ought to value humans, that's
a claim I can grasp. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
that does not appear to be what Linville is saying – he seems
to be making some ontological claim; but</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">what
does that mean?</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Linville
(p. 432)</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">And to be
told that one ought to value persons intrinsically would seem to
imply</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">that
persons just are of intrinsic moral worth.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
consider the statements. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="T1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>T1</B>:
One ought to value persons intrinsically. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A person
making that claim may well mean that one ought to value persons as
<I>ends</I>, not only as means to other end. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">We
can easily distinguish between valuing some thing or entity as means
to an end, and to have </SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ends</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
which we value for their own sake. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
this point,</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">it
is </SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>crucial</B></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
to confuse non-instrumental value, or final value, with some sort of
obscure 'mind-independent value' - </SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
key issue that will address again </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#valuinginstrumentally"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
a later section</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">In
other words, it's very important not to confuse the idea of valuing
some being, action, etc., </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>intrinsically,
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">in the comprehensible
sense of valuing it </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>for
its own sake, etc., </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">and
the obscure and perhaps incomprehensible claim of "intrinsic
value" in some sense of non-relational, and in particular
mind-independent value. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We value a
being B non-instrumentally, finally, or <I>intrinsically, </I>just in
case we value it as an end, and we value B instrumentally if we value
B as a means to an end. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of course,
someone might value a being B both instrumentally and
finally/intrinsically, since she might value B as a means to obtain
C, but also for its own sake – so, in particular, she'd value B
even if she already had C, or even if she couldn't obtain C through
B. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That is all
understandable, and in particular, so is talk about valuing some
being <I>intrinsically. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, in
that sense, there is no need to posit any extra entity in order for
people to value other people as ends/intrinsically, and not merely as
means. In particular, then, there is no need for anything like
mind-independent value (whatever 'mind-independent value' might mean,
if anything at all). </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">And
so, the claim </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#T1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">T1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">may
very well mean that we ought to value persons as ends, and not just
as means. No further ontology is required, and no obscure claims are
required. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
consider the other claim: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>T2</B>:
Persons are of intrinsic moral worth.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That claim
is very odd, but someone might use it just to mean, for instance: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>T2':
</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Every moral agent has a moral
obligation to value every person. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That is
unproblematic when it comes to understanding the claim, even if it's
obviously false. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Maybe we
should add the condition that the agent has to know about the
person's existence, and perhaps some extra conditions. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
that's not what Linville seems to mean by <B>T2 </B>at all. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Rather,
he's making an at best obscure ontological claim. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In fact,
even if the word 'value' is used in his claims, that claim seems
unrelated to what in daily life we mean by "value". </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We might as
well call it not 'intrinsic value', but instead 'property Z', and ask
the theist why we should <I>value</I> beings with property Z. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
any case, even assuming that the claim of mind-independent value is
coherent, the points </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#bayoneting"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">made</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><A HREF="#terminator"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">earlier</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#personal dignity"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
section </FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">show
that the previous claims he makes in his account are not true, and
that even if they were, that would </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#wouldntmatter"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">still</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">be
unproblematic for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
given all of that, the conclusion is that the argument from 'personal
dignity' presents no challenge to moral facts under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
particular, it would do nothing to refute evolutionary accounts of
morality like the one outlined earlier in this article. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="circularity"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>9.11)
Darker and darker </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">While
the previous subsections are subsections show that Linville's
"personal dignity" metaethical case fails, independently of
other reasons, but there are other issues I'd like to address, on the
subject of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#reasons"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">certain
ontological questions</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Linville makes other very obscure claims about that. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Linville</B></SPAN></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(p.
429) </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
reason rape is wrong, and, </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>indeed, the reason
that it is committed only by bad people, is that persons ought never
to be treated in that way.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
claim is worded in a very odd manner, but let's assess it carefully: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>L1</B>:
rape is wrong.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>More
specifically, the claim is about a moral agent engaging in rape, and
there is a victim who is a person, given the claim that people ought
never to be treated that way. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
<B>L1 </B>might mean something like: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>L1'</B>:
For all A, B, if A is a moral agent, and B is a person, and A rapes
B, then A acts immorally. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="L1"></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
that's not what Linville means by 'rape is wrong', in that context,
then what is it? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#noterape"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[10]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
let's take a look at <B>L2: </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="L2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>L2:
</B>persons ought never to be treated in that way.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That's
very odd, because the use of the passive voice makes it unclear who
the moral agent who ought never to treat persons that way actually
is. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
it may be a claim about <I>all </I>moral agents, so let's try to put
<B>L2 </B>in clearer terms: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>L2':
</B>For all A, B, if A is a moral agent, and B is a person, then A
ought not to rape B. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
now combine L1' and L2', in the context of explaining <I>why </I>rape
is wrong, and assert (with the corresponding substitutions): </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>L3</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
The reason why </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://L1/"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">L1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'
is that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#L2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">L2</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
that would not be an example of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#reasons"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">reasons-giving!</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>How
would that <I>explain</I> anything? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
that matter, one might assert: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>L4</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
The reason why </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#L2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">L2</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'
is that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://L1/"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">L1</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
that does not lead us anywhere, either. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>We
can go in circles, for that matter. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
that's not what Linville meant, then what is it? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Perhaps,
it's some other obscure claim about mind-independent value. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="bottom"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>9.12)
Where is the bottom? </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
leave aside issues of </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#circularity"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">obscurity
and apparent circularity</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>,
or the question of whether '</FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#intrinsic"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">mind-independent
value</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>'
is meaningful, and let's take a look at the matter from another angle
– which shows yet another problem. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>L5</B>:
Rape is immoral because people ought not to be treated that way. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
assuming that that is coherent and even true, someone may </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#C"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">turn
the tables</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>on
the theist defender of the metaethical argument and ask: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Q5:
</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Why is it that people ought not
to be treated that way? </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Of
course, a possible reply is that it's obvious, but that's of no help
for the theist, since, for that matter, the non-theist may reply in
the same manner to </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#C"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Q1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="C1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Q1</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Why are actions in category </SPAN><B>C</B> <SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">immoral?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Here,
'category </SPAN><B>C</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">' is say,
people torturing people for fun. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
the theist prefers not to accept the answer 'it's obvious' from the
non-theist, the non-theist, turning the tables on the theist, may
keep asking such questions, and 'it's evident' seems to be blocked
for the theist, else the non-theist may use it just as well. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
if the theist wants to prevent the </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">endless</SPAN></I>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">questions
that result when the non-theist turns the tables on him, the theist
might try to say that some of his answers are tautological, so there
are no more questions to be asked. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
as I explained </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#color ontology"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">before</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
that alone would seem to block the theistic argument – even
without counting all of the other problems I've been explaining, and
which make it untenable on other, independent grounds as well -,
since the non-theist may just say that 'moral goodness' can't be put
in terms of non-moral words, and that's it. But there is no need to
go further, as there isn't in the case of 'redness' (still, the
theist might posit, if she likes, that moral goodness is plausibly a
mental property). </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="persons naturalism"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>9.13)
Persons and naturalism</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let's
say that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">How would
that possibly be a problem for the existence of person, one might
wonder? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's see
what Goetz and Taliaferro have to say: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><B>Goetz
and Taliaferro </B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(from
Linville's argument)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
Astonishing Hypothesis is that ‘You,’ your joys and your
sorrows, your memories and your </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20">ambitions,
your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the
behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated
molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice may have phrased it:
‘You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.’ This
hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people alive today that
it can be truly called astonishing. (Goetz & Taliaferro 2008, p.
22)</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
'nothing but' and 'no more than', and so on, clearly may seriously
confuse people, somehow suggesting that they have no sorrows,
memories, ambitions, free will or sense of identity, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Of
course, humans have their memories, sense of identity, sorrows,
freedom, etc.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Most
people claim that there is an entity 'soul' behind them. That appears
to be not true, but that's beyond the scope of this article. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#231f20">The
point here is that, if the ontological claim is false and there is no
soul behind them, people </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><I>still have
their memories, ambitions, desires, sorrows, and freedom. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Given
that </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>all
of that </I></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">exists,
and since that does not seem to be a problem for </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
this kind of claim goes nowhere – except to the extent that
claims like 'nothing more', etc., may confuse people. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
aside, Linville seems to make a demand of explaining minds in terms
of the non-mental. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
should go without saying, but still, let's say it: resolving the hard
problem of consciousness is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
burden the non-theist bears – not even close -, but a project
for future research. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
theist, of course, has no hypothesis whatsoever about how a soul
interact with particles, either, but in any case, he would have to
show that there is some problem for consciousness under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
not just that he has a coherent account. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,
clearly, all of this no longer bears any resemblance to a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">metaethical
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">argument
for theism, so I will leave the matter at that, concluding that
Linville's arguments do not present any problem for moral facts or
moral knowledge </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and neither do any similar metaethical epistemic or ontological
arguments, or any other covered by the considerations made so far. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Before
moving on to the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Disagreement"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">next
section</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
I will address another potential objection about values: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="values perceptions"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">9.14)
Values and perceptions</FONT> </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Earlier,
and throughout this article, I've suggested that moral properties
like moral goodness plausibly are mental properties. However, we
shouldn't expect to find any description in non-technical terms any
time soon; our successors, perhaps centuries from now, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">might
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">come
up with a description of said mental properties in technical terms,
but we shouldn't demand </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">semantic
closure</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
we don't demand it in the color case. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Here,
I'd like to consider the following potential objection, which fits in
with the previous discussion about the so-called 'mind-independent
value'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
objection would go as follows: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>O3</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Moral properties, like moral goodness, cannot be some complex mental
properties even potentially describable in non-moral, perhaps
technical terms, since moral properties are valued properties, and
some mental properties like certain complex combination of beliefs,
attitudes, etc., are not valued. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
they're ontologically distinct. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
begin by presenting an alternative: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>CO3:
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Color
properties, like redness, cannot be </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#redness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">some
complex properties involving wavelengths</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
etc., since color properties are perceived properties, and
wavelengths, etc., are not. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
seems that, with that criterion, color properties also aren't the
same as those other properties. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Should
we posit some extra color ontology? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
would be very confused. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>What
happens is that there are some things around as – light of
certain wavelengths, etc. -, and they interact with our eyes and
brain, resulting in our perception of color, and normally eliciting
assessments like 'red', 'green', and so on. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Whether
the property 'redness' is the same as the property of reflecting or
emitting light in such-and-such wavelengths, etc., or supervenes on
them, seems to depend on issues related to the meaning of '</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#ontologysemantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">property</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">',
but what should be clear is that there is no need to posit any entity
beyond the light in question. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Similarly,
we have </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#trackingmental"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">a
sense that tracks some mental properties indirectly,</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">and
we experience characteristic mental states, which normally involve
valuing some mental states in other people positively, and some
negatively. No further entity or queer stuff is required for morality
– at the very least, no good reason to believe otherwise has
been given. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Granted,
the analogy is not a perfect match, but there appears to be no
difference that would be relevant in this case. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Still,
based on some of the potential differences, someone might raise an
objection as follows: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>O4</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Color properties supervene on but aren't the same as properties that
can be described in terms of wavelengths, etc. So, the fact that the
latter aren't perceived properties but color properties are, is not a
problem. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
if moral properties were just some mental properties we track –
rather than supervening on them -, then those mental properties we
track would have to be mind-independently valued properties,
regardless of our perceptions or valuations. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
objection fails for a number of reasons, mainly: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">First,
the 'idea' of 'mind-independent value' seems as incoherent as
'mind-independent' perception. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Agents
value other beings and/or properties</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but what would it even </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">mean</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
a property and/or entity to be mind-independently valued? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Such
a claim appears to be incoherent. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notereaders1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[4]</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second,
even if that idea of 'mind-independent value' were coherent, it would
not follow that we would need any of the sort: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
color properties supervene on but are distinct from any properties
that can be described in terms of wavelengths, etc., then color
properties are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">still</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some
properties that our visual system tracks, and which are perceived </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">by
us </SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(or
relevantly similar beings). </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Similarly
moral properties may well be mental properties that our moral sense
tracks, and which are valued </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">by
us </SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(or
relevantly similar beings). </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>No
need to posit anything like mind-independent value, even if we assume
for the sake of the argument that 'mind-independent value' is
coherent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="disagreement"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>10)
Disagreement</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Another
issue a theist might bring up is that of moral disagreement. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>They
might claim that, if EN is true and we have a shared, species-wide
moral sense, we should expect to see much less moral disagreement. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Of
course, a non-theist has an easy reply. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>After
all, why should we expect that evolution would give us a <I>much more
reliable moral sense </I>than a designer?</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Further,
if the designer is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect, it
seems clear – not to theists, of course – that at the
very least, he would not create any </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral agents"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
agents</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">with
an imperfect moral sense, since he could instead make beings who will
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">always</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">know
right from wrong, with no errors. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
moral disagreement actually works as a good objection </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">against
theism. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
any case, if the theist is a <I>Christian</I>, he might claim that,
if we have an evolved moral sense like we have an evolved color
vision, we shouldn't expect much disagreement – color
disagreement exists, but it much rarer than moral disagreement. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
the other hand – this objection would go -, if Christianity is
true, the Fall explains the flawed moral sense. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
be fair, I haven't seen any philosophers raise an objection of this
sort, and I wouldn't expect them to do so, but I've seen Christians
use the Fall in a number of arguments, and I can't rule out that some
Christians might raise such an objection, so I'm considering this
possibility just for the sake of thoroughness: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Fall "></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>10.1)
The Fall</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Even
if we leave aside the Problem of Suffering and the Problem of Evil,
the fact that Yahweh is not morally good </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notechristianity"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[11</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">],
that in the real world, preachers who claim superpowers do not have
them, and so on, the fact is that the account of the fall doesn't
make sense. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First,
it never happened: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>While
some of today's Christians claim that it was an allegory in the first
place, the fact is that traditionally, the claim was taken literally.
<BR>Moreover, if it was an allegory, then how would that explain a
flawed moral sense? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second,
how is it that the moral fault of Adam and Eve would affect the moral
sense of all of their descendants? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Yahweh
is the one creating new souls, and <I>he </I>is creating them, it
seems, with faulty moral senses. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
it's not Adam or Eve causing it; it's Yahweh. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Third,
even assuming that, in some mysterious way, Adam and Eve managed to
damage the moral sense of future souls, Yahweh could have – at
least – easily fixed the moral sense of all of the descendants.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
'free will' defense would fail: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
suppose someone, deliberately or perhaps negligently, infects an
entire population with a virus that affects their genes. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
a result, their descendants are born with some genetic illness.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>When
some people find a cure, they just choose not to make it available to
the population, even though they could do so at no cost, to somehow
respect the free will of the long dead original perpetrators of the
infection. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
just does not make sense to say that those people who found the cure
but chose not to use it are morally good. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
in short, the Christian has no reasonable account for disagreement,
and essentially neither does the theist, even if not a Christian. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>How
come a morally perfect, omniscient and omnipotent creator decides to
create beings with a flawed moral sense? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Even
if the moral sense is usually reliable, surely it isn't perfect. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
it seems clear that the theist has no account for this, so the
non-theist can hardly be </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">worse
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">equipped
to handle disagreement. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>At
worst, she might say she has no account, either. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
let's take a look at a possible suggestion to see that, whatever its
merits, it's at least something. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="evolutionary"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>10.2)
A potential evolutionary hypothesis </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
how might an evolutionary account explain moral disagreement? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
following reasons can be given, which provide a sketch of a (partial)
explanation compatible with </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>a)
Complex social life, fitness costs and limited brain power:</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
might be useful to have, say, a thousand times better memory, or
being able to reason much better – faster, more reliably, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But,
of course, the brain can't grow indefinitely; bigger brains have
advantages, but also costs, from energy consumption to a seriously
dangerous delivery to more frequent mental illness. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
a complex social world like ours, it's sometimes very difficult to
ascertain accurately other individual's intentions, and well as
things such as how much care they put in figuring out rational ways
of achieving their ends, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It's
even much more difficult than it was in the much simpler ancestral
environment, given the size and complexity of today's societies, the
number of individuals to keep track of, etc. - though even then, it
was not trivial. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
a result, moral judgments are in some cases very difficult to make. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Even
if some mental faculties can improve through efficiency rather than
brain size, that takes time, is also limited, and there are other,
competing selection pressures: being better at making moral
assessments may be one advantage, but other social skills are also
advantageous, and so given limited brain size and power, improvements
in a moral sense are limited as well. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>b)
Other motivations and emotional commitments may impair moral judgment</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, in-group loyalty is a very powerful motivation, and it may
bias people significantly. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
a result, they might demonize outsiders and see group-members as
better – being hostile to outsiders, in many cases at least,
might be another evolved tendency. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
short, since there is no designer, our minds result from an
assortment of adaptations that sometimes tug in different directions
– and, of course, environmental factors that reinforce some of
them. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
some cases, that results in false moral judgments, as they result in
false judgments on other matters. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>c)
Religion</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
a specific example of environmental interferences with proper moral
judgments, people are usually indoctrinated to believe that the
claims of some religion is true. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
strong perceived links between group-membership, group identity and
group loyalty – among other factors – may predispose
people to defend those beliefs, even at high cost, rather than using
their moral sense to make moral assessments. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, in many cases, someone may have to make a moral
assessment of a certain matter. However, instead of using their own
moral sense, they accept an assessment that follows from a religious
tradition or book that is at least centuries old, and which was
developed by people who of course did not have access to the
present-day situation to be assessed – not to mention that they
had false beliefs resulting from false views of origins, little time
to assess matters carefully, etc., and their own biases. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Of
course, that hypothesis is just a preliminary suggestion, and it may
be challenged. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
the fact is that even a quick and partial suggestion is a lot</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">better
than anything that the theist has to offer. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="toomany"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>11)
Too many beliefs? </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Another
potential objection would contend that evolution would not give us a
full-blown morality: those are too many beliefs to code into DNA.
There are infinitely many possible situations. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A
reply is that there is no need to code all those beliefs: only a
finite number of patterns have to be detectable, and then the
difficulty is to classify complex behaviors in those categories. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
any event, the burden would be on the arguer. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="heroism"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>12)
Heroism</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might object to evolutionary accounts on the ground of acts of
heroism, sometimes resulting in the death of the person making the
sacrifice. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
theist might raise issues such as: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Why
would self-sacrificial actions take place? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Why
would they some of them be considered heroic – and hence,
morally good? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Wouldn't
an evolved moral sense be in conflict with that? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
that's not how evolution works: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">The
predispositions to act have to lead to reproductive success </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>on
average in the ancestral environment</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000">given an evolved moral
sense, acts in which the agent chooses to help some other groups
members are plausibly so adaptive. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Also,
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>valuing</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">such
actions positively when performed by others may well be adaptive as
well. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Of
course, in the case someone has to actually make a decision that
would involve self-sacrifice </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>other,
non moral </I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">motivations
would be present as well, as a result of predispositions that evolved
not as a result of a social environment, but simply to keep the agent
from harm, which is generally negative for reproductive success. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Additionally,
of course, it's not all in the genes; environmental factors,
including a person's previous decisions, rearing, etc., shape a
person's mind as well. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, as a
result of all of that, it's unsurprising that decisions may go one
way or another, though in most cases, people actually do <I>not </I>do
such lethal heroic acts. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">A
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>moral obligation </I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">to
carry out a self-sacrificial act to help other people is implausible
in nearly all realistic cases, but when such an act is carried out,
it may well be often morally good: we may assess that using our moral
sense, and it's not against what we know about evolution. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On that
note, there are plenty of actions, some carried out by humans and
some by other animals, that do not result in reproductive success. In
fact, some of them have a negative effect on reproduction. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Agents
have competing motivations, resulting from both predispositions and
environmental factors; the predispositions usually evolved as
adaptations because they were </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>on
average </I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">conducive
to reproductive success in the evolutionary environment, but there is
no way they would </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>always</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">result
in behavior that is so conducive. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
conducive to reproductive success or not is not the point; the point
is that some self-sacrificial actions are </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>morally
good. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of course,
some cases of self-sacrifice are also very immoral: suicide bombers
who murder innocent people are an obvious example. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Neither
those actions nor the morally good ones seem to be problematic for
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="psychology"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>13)
Psychology, not ontology</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Let's
consider the following argument:</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>William
Lane Craig: </B></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#noteCraigharris"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[12]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
the naturalistic view, human beings are just animals, and animals
have no moral obligation to one another. When a lion kills a zebra,
it kills the zebra, but it doesn’t </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><EM><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">murder</FONT></FONT></EM><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
zebra. When a great white shark forcibly copulates with a female, it
forcibly copulates with her but it doesn’t </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><EM><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">rape</FONT></FONT></EM><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">her–for
none of these actions is forbidden or obligatory. There is no moral
dimension to these actions. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's not
clear that the shark doesn't rape the female, though it's clear that
he does not have any moral obligations, so he does not behave
immorally. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But that
aside, a brief reply is as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">When
a lioness kills a zebra, she doesn't fly. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">And
when a zebra escapes from a lioness, he doesn't fly, either.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Zebras,
lionesses, gazelles, rats, cats – none of them flies. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
mammals do not fly. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
a biologist's view, bats are just mammals. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
mammals do not fly, and many bats do. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
refutes biologists' claim that bats are just mammals...</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Parodies
aside, and leaving also aside Craig's contemptuous "just"
in "just animals", the fact that some animals are not moral
agents is no good reason to believe that no animals are moral agents.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of
course, there are obvious </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>psychological</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">differences
between different species, and in particular, between humans and
great whites, or any other species for that matter. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notechimps"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[13]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">What
actually matters, when it comes to the question of whether a being is
a </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral agents"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
agent</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
is not the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>ontology
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
the agent's mind, but the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>psychology
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
her mind. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
ontology could only have an indirect effect, to the extent to which
it conditions the psychology. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I think
that, after reflexion, that much should be clear. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still, in
case someone is not persuaded, let's consider the following scenario:
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
let's assume theism for the moment, and let's suppose that God
creates a universe in which there are no souls. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Instead, he
creates some sort of panpsychist universe, where there are some
basic, essential particles with some sort of basic phenomenal
consciousness, but no intelligence, no pain, etc., essentially much
simpler than a mosquito's mind – they shouldn't even be
properly called 'minds', I think. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then, in
that universe, through theistic evolution, complex beings arise. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">They do not
have souls, but they do have minds, with the full range of emotions,
knowledge, etc., of the animals we're familiar with. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In fact,
one of the species God creates has a psychological makeup similar to
that of humans, and is capable of making moral assessments, just like
we can. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
suppose that one of those beings engages in torturing other such
beings for fun, and – of course – others assess that he's
behaving in a very immoral manner. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Would he
not be acting immorally? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Would the
others be in error? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It seems
clear that they would not be mistaken, regardless of the fact that
their minds are made up of the same kind of basic stuff that the rest
of the minds of the other animals in that universe – including
all of those without a moral sense -, and even made up of the same
kind of basic stuff as tables, chairs, and the like. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of course,
the tables, etc., do not have table-minds, etc: the basic particles
that make them up do have the most basic phenomenal consciousness,
but they're not combined in a way that makes up any less basic
consciousness. They're only connected externally, so to speak. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, chairs,
tables, etc., are not moral beings – obviously -, and neither
are mosquitoes or similar entities, but on the other hand, entities
with human-like minds are moral beings, just as humans are, and
regardless of what their minds are made of. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We may also
consider an alternative scenario, just like the above but in which
there is no phenomenal consciousness in the basic particles –
i.e., no panpsychism -, and minds emerge when some kind of
combinations of particles happen – God just made the particles
with the properties that when they combine in a certain manner, they
combination acquires awareness. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
conclusion is the same: beings with human-like minds are </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral agents"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
agents</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
regardless of the ontology of the mind. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A theist
might say that those scenarios are impossible, and that God would not
do that. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But for
that matter, if we're going to use our moral sense to assess what God
would or would not do, the Problem of Evil and Problem of Suffering
against theism would be decisive – though, of course, theists
wouldn't accept that.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
let's modify the previous scenarios so that, instead of God, the
creator is another powerful unembodied intelligent being –
assuming that unembodied intelligent beings are coherent. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Once
again, it seems intuitively clear that those created beings would be
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral agents"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
agents</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Now,
if we remove all creators, the intuitive moral assessment remains the
same. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#noteintuitions"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[14]</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><BR>True,
a theist might insist that such scenarios are, for that reason,
metaphysically impossible. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
that issue would be </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>beside
the point </I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">in
this context. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">What
the scenarios would still show is that the </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>meaning</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
moral terms is not such that it ontologically commits us to the
existence of souls, or to any particular </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>ontology</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
minds. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, the meaning of moral terms is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
that if we say, "Agent A acted immorally", we're implying
that A has a soul, or in any case that the mind of agent A is made up
of some kind of basic substance that is different from the kind of
basic substances that chairs, tables, and mosquitoes are made of. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Given
that there is no </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">semantic
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">requirement
of souls or any such ontology, this matter is no problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
all. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A theist
might also claim that the meaning of moral terms is such that any
moral judgment assigning moral properties entails that there are
souls, by the meaning of the words, but the meaning is
non-transparent, so competent users of moral terms will not notice
it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
for that matter, someone might say that the meaning of moral terms is
such that any moral judgment assigning moral properties entails that
there are <I>no </I>souls, by the meaning of the words, but the
meaning is non-transparent, so competent users of moral terms will
not notice it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The point
here is that there is <I>nothing</I> as far as one can tell that
would even <I>suggest</I> that our moral language is such that souls
are a requirement for moral agency, or a problem for it, or generally
that some ontological difference between the kind of basic stuff that
chairs, mosquitoes, lions, and people are made of, is required for
moral agency to exist. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Given
that there is no </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">semantic</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">requirement
for souls or any other such entity, then it seems that what would be
left to the theist here would be an empirical challenge: namely, they
might argue that if </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://EN/"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true, then the kind of mind that we have would not exist. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
that would have to be argued for, and it seems to me that that would
no longer be a <I>metaethical</I> argument at all. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Before
moving on to the next point, I'd like to further clarify a matter
about ontology and psychology. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">According
to Craig, without souls, there is no <I>qualitative </I>difference
between humans and other animals. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
say, humans and sharks are clearly are <I>qualitatively </I>different,
in the sense that their minds are very different. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
qualifies as a qualitative difference in usual terms, if anything
does. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In fact,
they're very different kinds of entities – precisely because of
the different minds -, so maybe we can say that they're ontologically
different as well. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">What is not
ontologically different is the <I>basic stuff </I>they're made of. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, if
no ontological difference in the basic stuff they're made of means
that they're not ontologically different, then so be it: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It's
just a matter of terminology that presents no problem for the person
who accepts </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://EN/"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
since the fact remains that – as shown earlier in this section
– what matters is psychology, not ontology of the basic stuff
they're made of. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="materialism"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>14)
Materialism</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notematerialism"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[15]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Another
argument for theism that Craig defends is based on the claim that
determinism is somehow a problem for morality: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig: </B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notemetaonline"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[16]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Secondly,
if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think
and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic
make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do
something. But without freedom, none of our choices is morally
significant. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>While
is true that freedom seems to be required for moral responsibility,
it's not true that determinism is a problem for freedom. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
will address that in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#freedom"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
following section</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but in this one, I will argue that even assuming that libertarian
free will is coherent and actually is a correct understanding of
freedom, there is no good reason to think that that would be a
problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://EN/"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
fact, there is nothing in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://EN/"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
entails determinism, and some interpretations of quantum mechanics
are non-deterministic. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might suggest that that quantum non-determinism does not provide the
adequate kind of non-determinism to allow libertarian freedom. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
reality, non-determinism might hinder but never help freedom, and
libertarian 'freedom' </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#freedom"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
no freedom at all</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so there is nothing to this point. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
leaving that aside and assuming otherwise for the sake of the
argument, there is no good reason to think that quantum mechanics
prevents brains from having whatever kind of freedom souls are
supposed to have. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
see this, let's say that there are particles, not souls, and the
universe is indeterministic. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
the fact remains that humans have minds. We can love, believe, feel,
and so on. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
the conclusion is that particles can interact with each other in ways
that result in minds. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Hence,
it remains the case that not all the properties of particles are
those described by present-day physics, since present-day physics
says nothing about either forming minds or interacting with them. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
addition to that, it remains the case that not all the properties of
particles that are causally effective are described by present-day
physics – particles have the property of being capable of
forming minds, for instance. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
any arguments and/or evidence that we – by assumption –
have in support of libertarian freedom would remain, since modern
physics says nothing about minds, or what kind of freedom they may or
may not have. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might claim that only non-mental properties of particles, or of
combinations of particles, would be causally effective in that
scenario. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
that would have to be argued for: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Why
should we suspect that causal efficacy is limited to non-mental
properties – some described by present-day physics, some not –
of particles and of certain configurations of particles, but mental
properties have no effects? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="freedom"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>15)
Freedom, libertarian 'freedom', and determinism</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
I explained in the previous section, Craig's arguments – or
similar ones – fail to show that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
materialism, or physicalism entail determinism and/or a lack of
freedom, even assuming that a libertarian free will hypothesis is a
correct account of human freedom. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
this section I will show that libertarian free will is not freedom,
and should more properly be called 'random will'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
consider the following scenario:</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alice
has been a good police officer for ten years.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>She's
kind, committed her job, good to her children, and so on.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
one morning, Alice goes to work as usual. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
police get a call about a domestic disturbance, and Alice and another
officer are sent to the address they're given.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>When
they arrive there, they encounter Harry, a thirteen-year old kid high
on drugs, acting completely irrationally. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>He
tells Alice: 'You're a police officer, so you're evil. Why don't you
shoot me?'</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alice
has no reason at all to shoot Harry. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>He
poses no threat to her, and can be easily arrested if needed. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
it's clear that she has the <I>power </I>to shoot him, and
is <I>free</I> to choose whether to shoot him. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>All
she'd have to do is pull her gun, point it at Harry, and shoot. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>No
one would see that coming, so no one could stop her if she did that –
no human, anyway; the point is that she wouldn't be stopped. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
Alice – of course – feels no inclination whatsoever to
shoot Harry, does not shoot him, and follows procedure.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">The
point is that saying that Alice </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>can
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">shoot Harry, that she
has the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>power </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">to
shoot him, that she is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>free</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
to choose whether to shoot him, etc., means that she would shoot him
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>if she chose to do so,
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">that she's not being
coerced, etc.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">It
does </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>not at all </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">mean
that, even given Alice's mental state at the time she chose to
follow procedure, and even given </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>all</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
the conditions of the world at that time and previous times –
including Alice's goals, beliefs, character, etc. -, it was still
possible that Alice would shoot Harry.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
the contrary, if, given all those previous states, it was possible
that Alice shot Harry, then it seems that there is a possible world W
with the exact same past as ours prior to Alice's decision to follow
procedure, at which Alice shot Harry instead. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">But
that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>is not an
exercise of freedom, in the usual sense of the words. Rather, it's an
unfortunate event that happens to Alice. </I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
see this, let's consider Alice's mental processes leading to her
'decision' to shoot Alice – say, decision D. Alice never
considered shooting her, and had no desire, intention, etc., before
decision D happened.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
at some time, earlier states of the world, including her earlier
mental processes did not determine her later mental processes. There
is an event "Alice decides to shoot Harry" that happens
irrespective of any previous states of Alice's mind, and no matter
how much Alice would loath being a murderer.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>All
of Alice's previous reasoning, desires, behavior, intentions, etc.,
are incapable to stop 'decision' D from happening. But how's
that Alice's decision?</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">It
seems D is not a decision Alice made, but rather, it's something that
happened </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>to </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Alice.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It's
not something Alice could have anticipated, or prevented: at some
point her mental processes changed from normal to 'shoot Harry',
without forewarning, and without any cause in previous mental
processes.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Someone
might claim that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>necessarily</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
there is always </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>some </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">hidden
reason to shoot people, or to do </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>anything </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">one
can do, but that would have to be argued for, and even then, that
would not change the fact that, in that case, Alice could not have
prevented his mental processes from changing at some point from
normal to 'shoot Harry', no matter what she did before – and
that change could not be reasonably said to be </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>her </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">decision,
since she had never considered that before, and the change took her
by surprise.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Those
considerations show that that kind of thing should not be called
'freedom', but more like 'an unfortunate kind of randomness'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
does not mean that human non-determinism isn't true. But that is
surely not required for freedom, and in fact, it might undermine it,
as the previous scenario shows. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Perhaps</I>,
there are situations after which, after assessing the pros and cons,
a human is undecided between A or ¬A; if so, maybe there is a
truly random outcome generator for such cases (which might involve
also several mutually exclusive options: A1, A2, A3,...)</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
if that is the case, that is not required for free will: a random
generator that delivers 'decisions' in cases in which the mind
remains undecided clearly does not result in more freedom than a mind
that actually makes decisions. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So,
if there is such indeterminism, as long as the indeterministic events
happen when a person is undecided (based on her previous feelings,
desires, reasoning, etc., she is undecided and does not cause any
outcome), </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>maybe </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">that
randomness is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>compatible</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
with free will, but that's all. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">On
the other hand, if there is an indeterministic feature of human
behavior that happens to be like Bob's example above – i.e., if
it happens </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>against </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">everything
that the person stood for, his previous considerations, etc. -, then,
and as the previous example shows, that kind of indeterminism –
at least, when it happens – would actually </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>preclude </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">free
will; rather, the 'decision' would be an unfortunately random will.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">There
is another way to see this, taking into account that even under
the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>exact </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">same
preexisting conditions – including, of course, the previous
mental states of the libertarian-free agent. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
let's consider the following scenario (relativizing time as
required):</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alice
is a libertarian-free human, and at t(s), the state of worlds W and
W' is exactly the same – that includes, of course, Alice's
mental processes.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Later,
Alice libertarian-freely chooses A at W, and B at W', even though the
states of the worlds prior to Alice's decision were the same (A is
different from B). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, W and W' are exactly the same until Alice's mental
processes diverge.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
let p be a Planck time, and n a non-negative integer, starting with
0.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
consider times t(s)+n*p, and the states of W and W', W(n) and W'(n)
respectively.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let
n(l) be the last n such that W(n) = W'(n).</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Since
the 'decision' was made even given the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>exact </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">same
prior conditions, it seems that the 'decision' happened between
t(s)+n(l)*p, and t(s)+(n(l)+1)*p = t(s)+n(l)*p+p, in other words, the
'decision' was made </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>in
not more than a Planck time.</I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That's
way too fast for any human conscious decision, though. So, it becomes
clearer that the first indeterministic event E that distinguishes
between W and W' is same random alteration of Alice's mental
processes. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might suggest that, previous processes in her mind made E in
probable, but weren't enough to bring it about, something still
altered her mind randomly; let's assume that that would be a coherent
interpretation of probability (else, this objection fails already). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Even
then, the fact would remain that her mind was altered without a
cause, and with nothing she could do earlier to stop it; moreover, in
some cases, the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">improbable
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'decision'
might happen. And in those cases in which the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">improbable</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'decision'
happens – i.e., the decision that her previous mental processes
made improbable – </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we're
back with something like the unfortunate case of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#freedom"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
libertarian-free police officer.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might still object that, if such a random change in her mind
happened, she still could have changed her mind, and refrained from
carrying out the decision – in the case of the </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#freedom"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">first
example</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the shooting. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
problem is, though, that if you can have such a random event </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
t(s)+n(l)*p, and t(s)+(n(l)+1)*p, it seems you can have another one
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
every single Planck time that follows, </SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">until
the "decision" that was completely against everything the
person previously stood for, actually happens. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
let's suppose someone introduces some fuzziness in some way –
which they would have to explain, of course; else, the previous
reasoning stands. Even then, the fact would remain that the agent
would have a random component – a change in her mind she can't
bring about, because it happens no matter what she tried previously;
it's just that we wouldn't be able to see that by means of analyzing
the process step-by-step, but all of the other reasons I've given
above remain. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A
theist might say that that's 'actually the agent acting', or
something like that but – whatever that means -, the fact would
remain that that would a partially random agent acting, not one in
which mental processes are sufficient to bring about behavior; it
would be an agent with a randomly altered mind – i.e., a mind
that suffers some alterations that have no sufficient causes; it's
akin to dice-throwing, and in some cases, it might go against
everything the agent had stood for up till then. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
for all of the previous reasons, the claim that non-determinism is
required for freedom ought to be rejected. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
does not mean we can't act of our own accord, of course. We can and
sometimes do have freedom; it's just that indeterminism is not
required for that. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
there is an objection available to the theist, which seems to be
Craig's position: namely, that is lack of <I>causal </I>determination
that is required for freedom to exist, not lack of determinism.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
if an event is determined by previous conditions, then it seems it's
causally determined too, since some the previous conditions would be
causes. How would it be otherwise? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
seems puzzling. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
regardless, we can make a case against the requirement of causal
indeterminism independently. If causal indeterminism is true, then no
matter what Alice does up to some time t, all of her thought
processes, intentions, desires, memories, reasoning, are all
insufficient to bring about her decision. So, it seems that the
"decision" might just happen to her, and she might still
shoot Harry. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Again,
the theist might say that that's the agent acting. But how can she
act so quickly – indeed, instantaneously? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
any case, as I explained in the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#materialism"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">previous
section</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
whatever the correct account of freedom is, if a soul can do it,
there is no good reason to think that souls are required but
particles can't do it. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="practical"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16) A
practical diversion</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While not
actually metaethical arguments, Craig gives 'practical' arguments for
the existence of God, in the context of his metaethical ones. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I will
assess them in this section, and make a general point against <I>all
</I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">similar
'practical' arguments. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="accountability"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>16.1)
Accountability </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig
raises the issue that someone might get away with evil, without
theism. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">According
to Craig, if there is no God, there is no moral accountability, and
somehow it doesn't matter how one lives. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notemetaonline"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[16]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
even without any kind of afterlife, Craig's claim is false: our
choices affect our future, and the future of others; they can cause
happiness, suffering, etc., to us and/or to other people, and of
course that normally matters <I>to us and to others. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
there is in many cases moral accountability even if God does not
exist, like bank robbers going to prison. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
t<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">here
does not need to be an afterlife for justice to be done in many
cases. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">There
may not </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>always
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">be
accountability, but there is in many cases.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
said, the previous considerations, while correct, are actually minor
in this context, since we're talking about a 'practical argument' for
belief in God, and that's epistemically </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>disastrous</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
would be </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">irrational
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
a person to come to believe that God exists just because he or she
realizes that some bad people would get away with murder under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://EN/"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and that makes them feel sad – or however it makes them feel. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
would be some kind of <I>wishful thinking.</I></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>The
fact that having belief B would make a person feel better does not
warrant having belief B.</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
fact, it's not clear to me how this is even psychologically doable. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>How
would someone trying to engage in that kind of wishful thinking go
about it? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Bob</B>:
Let's see: I do not have the belief that God exists, or enough
reasons that would convince me of that. However, without God some
people will probably get away with evil, and that is disheartening.
So, from now on, I will believe that God exists.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That's
just not doable – i.e., I don't think that that would actually
result in belief. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might suggest some kind of Pascal Wager-style conversion, in which
people practice the rituals of a religion in order to somehow
gradually convince themselves that said religion is true. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I'm
not sure that that would be doable. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>At
least, I'm pretty sure that for many of us, it wouldn't be, though it
might be for others. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
in any event, that would be another <I>irrational</I> course of
action. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
be fair, Craig does not attempt to use the practical argument <I>alone</I>.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Instead,
he proposes to use practical arguments to "back up or motivate"
the acceptance of what he believes are sound theoretical arguments. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>would
be irrational as well</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
if the person has not been persuaded by the theoretical arguments,
they would still be engaging in wishful thinking to come to believe
in God. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
short, it's still an epistemic nightmare. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="Motivation"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>16.2)
Motivation again </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Another
'practical argument' Craig gives is based on the issue of motivations
for doing the right thing. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Of
course, as in the case of the previous 'practical argument', it would
be irrational to believe on account of this.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
aside, Craig contends that sometimes self-interest is in conflict
with morality. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notemetaonline"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[16]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Of
course, Craig is using 'self-interest' in a way that excludes a
person's interest in doing what's right, simply because it's the
right thing to do.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
usage is common, so it's not a problem, but we need to keep in mind
that that's what's meant by 'self-interest'; it's not the only
interest people have, of course: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Because
of their own psychological makeup, human beings are motivated not to
act immorally; that's also one of our interests, even if not covered
under the label 'self-interest'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
motivation may be defeasible, but it's there, with the possible
exception of some psychopaths. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
it seems to me that in order for an action to be morally good,
motivation counts. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, it seems clear that helping people out of fear of damnation
would not be morally good. It wouldn't always be morally wrong,
either. But it wouldn't be morally good – the behavior might
just be morally neutral. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
is true, though, that fear can prevent some people from behaving
immorally. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
the other hand, if we're engaging in practical considerations –
which have nothing to do with moral ontology, moral semantics, moral
knowledge, or whether God exists -, let's also assess some of the
potential consequences of coming to believe that God exists. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
fact is that, in addition to the irrationality of adopting a belief
for practical reasons, usually such beliefs are not just some kind of
unspecified theism, but some version of Christianity or Islam, with
all the baggage of false beliefs – including false </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>moral
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">beliefs
-, attached to them. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>False
moral beliefs tend to cause people to behave immorally, believing
that they're doing the right thing. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might point out that some non-theists have engaged in terrible
behavior, perhaps in the name of communism or some other ideology. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
is true, but the point remains that adopting <I>false </I>moral
beliefs generally results in more immoral behavior, regardless of
whether the false ideology the false moral beliefs come from is
religious or not. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
practical terms, people who become non-theists are not likely to
engage in such actions, whereas people who become theists are likely
to become Christians or Muslims aren't likely to kill in the name of
their religion, either, but are likely to follow </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
its false moral teachings, so conversions do tend to have such
negative consequences. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Still,
none of that is the main point here. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
main point is the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">irrationality
</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
using so-called 'practical arguments' for belief, regardless of what
the belief is about. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="failure DCT"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>17)
The failure of Divine Command Theories (DCT)</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There
are several theories, about moral ontology and/or moral semantics,
that may be called 'Divine Command Theory'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A
<I>semantic </I>DCT would posit that 'Agent A has a moral obligation
to to X' means 'God commands agent A to do X', or something like it. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I'm
not sure many philosophers would defend semantic DCT, but refuting
them will be useful – though not required – as a means of
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#commanders"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">showing
why one of Craig's arguments fails</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
– </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">even
if his metaethical argument is an ontological one, he seems to make
some (false) semantic assumptions. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">An
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ontological
DCT </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">claims
that moral obligations/duties are – in some sense of
'constituted – constituted by the commands of God, without
necessarily making a semantic claim like the one made by semantic
DCT. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#noteDCT">[17]</A>
</FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, William Lane Craig made such a claim in his debate with Sam
Harris.<A HREF="#notecraigpod">[2] </A></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's
not entirely clear what 'constituted' means in this context, since
moral obligations aren't some entity that may have a certain
composition, and the claim is not one of semantic equivalence,
either. Still, I will let that pass and in any case present an
objection that succeeds in spite of the obscurity of the claim, since
it works under any plausibly understanding of the word 'constituted'.
</FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Before
I get to that, I would like to clarify that there is no need to
refute DCT in the context of a case against theistic metaethical
arguments: while a theist might present a DCT in the context of such
an argument and demand that the non-theist offer an alternative,
there is no burden on the non-theist to present another metaethical
hypothesis, or to refute the theistic one, as I explained in earlier
sections. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
fact, even if the non-theist has no metaethical theory and the theist
does, that does not, on its own, place the theist in a better
epistemic position, just as someone who posits an account of human
origins (e.g., Young Earth Creationism) is in no better position that
someone who has no hypothesis about the origin of humans just because
of it. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Furthermore,
it would be up to the theist proponent of a DCT to defend his
hypothesis, and if he has no good reasons to believe it's true, then
<I>his</I> position would of course be <I>worse</I> than that of a
non-theist who had no alternative hypothesis to offer. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Still,
DCT are false, and I will now proceed to show that they are: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="ontological DCT"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>17.1)
Ontological Divine Command Theories</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Before
I address the heart of this matter, I will address a specific issue
about metaphysical possibility, in order to preempt certain potential
objections. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="meta"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">17.1.1)
Metaphysical possibilities</FONT> </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
consider the following hypothetical dialogue: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Alice</B>:
Water is H<SUB>2</SUB>O. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Tom</B>:
I don't believe it. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
believe that that's a scientific conspiracy. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Water
is not H<SUB>2</SUB>O, but Hg<SUB>2</SUB>Po. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Alice</B>:
What? Hg<SUB>2</SUB>Po? That's absurd!</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Tom</B>:
That's easy to say, but do you have any evidence? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>And
don't tell me to look at papers or textbooks. They're all in on the
conspiracy. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
you want to persuade me that water is not Hg<SUB>2</SUB>Po, then show
me that it is not, and then maybe you can try to convince me that
it's H<SUB>2</SUB>O. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Alice</B>:
Hmm...let's see: Do you know what the composition of sulfuric acid
is? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Tom</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Yes, that one is real. Sulfuric acid is H</SPAN><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">SO</SPAN><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4.</SPAN></SUB></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Alice</B>:
Good. Let's see: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
water were Hg<SUB>2</SUB>Po, then the molecule of water would be
heavier than the molecule of sulfuric acid. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Maybe
we can use that to test the theory. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Bob:
</B>I'm sorry, Alice, but that's impossible. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
agree with you, of course, that water is H<SUB>2</SUB>O. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
given that water is H<SUB>2</SUB>O, it's metaphysically impossible
for water to be Hg<SUB>2</SUB>Po, so your conditional has a
metaphysically impossible antecedent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
I'm afraid that you're constructing a metaphysically impossible
scenario. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Tom</B>:
Well, water isn't H<SUB>2</SUB>O, but if it were, then Alice would
indeed be constructing a metaphysically impossible scenario. So,
Alice, your suggestion fails. Try again. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Alice</B>:
What are you two even talking about? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I'm
not suggesting that Alice's test is a good one, or that entertaining
Tom's absurdities is a good idea, either, but my point here is that
Alice's claim 'If water were Hg<SUB>2</SUB>Po, then the molecule of
water would be heavier than the molecule of sulfuric acid' is clearly
a <I>true </I>claim.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
objections raised by Bob and Tom are very confused. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
it is metaphysically impossible for water to be anything but H</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SUB><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">O</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
nothing to do with the truth value of Alice's conditional. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Incidentally,
as a side note, if someone is a theist and shares Bob's confusion, he
might object to any argument that has a premise stating 'If God does
not exist...', since theists usually hold that God exists
necessarily. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="obligatios of God"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>17.1.2)
The moral obligations</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>of
a personal creator</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
there is no personal creator of all other personal beings, then God
does not exist. Then, it is not the case that our moral obligations
are constituted by God's commands, and so DCT are not true. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
let's assume in the rest of this subsection, and for the sake of the
argument, that there is a personal being, creator of all other
personal beings. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
name that being 'Alex'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, by 'Alex' I mean 'The personal being who created all
other personal beings.'</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
don't mean anything else by 'Alex'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
here Alex is a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">personal
</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">being,
and not a baby. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
let's see that Alex actually has moral obligations.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepersonal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[18]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
show that, my strategy is in a sense similar to Craig's strategy in
support of the second premise of his metaethical argument, which
appeals to people's intuitive assessment that, say, the Holocaust was
morally wrong, that torturing a child just for fun is immoral, and so
on. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
Alex is a person who created all other personal beings. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>My
claim – which I would ask readers to please assess by their own
sense of right and wrong – is the following: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="P3"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>S1</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
If Alex were to create other personal beings for the specific,
deliberate and exclusive purpose of torturing those beings for all
eternity, then Alex would be acting immorally. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
seems to me that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>S1
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
obviously true.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I'm
not even talking about eternal punishment in Hell – I maintain
that that would also be immoral, but that's a matter for another
article. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
the case under consideration in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#P3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>S1</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there is no punishment for any sin; we're talking about a person
creating personal beings with the specific, deliberate and exclusive
purpose of torturing them for all eternity. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
if Alex created other personal beings for the specific, deliberate
and exclusive purpose of torturing those beings for all eternity,
then Alex would be acting immorally. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might object that if Alex is God, then the antecedent of the
conditional </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#P3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>S1</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
metaphysically impossible. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
that would be a very confused objection, as explained </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#meta"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>in
the previous subsection.</FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alternatively,
someone might suggest that my argument is circular, because –
allegedly – I would be somehow assuming that there is moral
knowledge without God. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
that is not the case: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">First,
the previous sections </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">already
show</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
metaethical arguments for theism fail to show that there is any
problem for moral knowledge under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://EN/"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
as long as I'm justified in holding that there is moral knowledge, it
seems I'm also justified in holding that God is not required for
that, and a theist is not in a position to challenge a claim that I'm
justified in holding that there is moral knowledge. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Second,</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">even
leaving all of the previous arguments aside, </SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">here
I don't need to hold that there is moral knowledge without God. The
arguments that I'm making in this section are against DCT, not
against theism. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
I don't even need to assume that Alex is not God. I'm not making any
assumptions on that matter, one way or another. Rather, what I'm
doing is: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a)
Accepting that there </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral
knowledge. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>b)
Assuming that Alex exists. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, I'm assuming that a personal creator of all other
personal beings exist. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>c)
I'm not making further assumptions about Alex; in particular, I'm
neither assuming that Alex is God, nor that he or she is not God. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">d)
I'm using my sense of right and wrong to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">conclude</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#P3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>S1</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true – and asking readers to use their own moral sense, of
course. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, I'm </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">concluding,
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">using
my moral sense, and some assumptions that are </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">entailed
by theism, </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
if Alex were to create other personal beings for the specific,
deliberate and exclusive purpose of torturing those beings for all
eternity, then Alex would be acting immorally. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
this objection would fail as well. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There
is no improper assumption or circularity on my part. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
I will appeal to the reader's grasp of moral terms, and claim that –
just by the meaning of the words – </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#P3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>S1</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><U>
</U></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">entails:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>S2</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Alex has a moral obligation not to create other personal beings for
the specific, deliberate and exclusive purpose of torturing those
beings for all eternity. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Readers
will use their own grasp of moral terms to make their own assessment,
of course, but I contend that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>S2
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">follows
from </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#P3"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>S1</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just
as 'Barack Obama is not a bachelor' follows from 'Barack Obama is
married'. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
Alex </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
a moral obligation. </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
that moral obligation is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
constituted by one of Alex's commands – </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hopefully,
that is clear. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, Alex's moral obligation not to create other personal
beings for the specific, deliberate and exclusive purpose of
torturing those beings for all eternity, is not constituted by Alex's
'command to Alex' not to create other personal beings for the
specific, deliberate and exclusive purpose of torturing those beings
for all eternity – there is no command from Alex to Alex. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Hence,
it is not true that moral obligations are constituted by Alex's
commands. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
if God exists, then God and Alex are the same person, since God is
the creator of all other personal beings, and Alex is the creator of
all other personal beings. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Therefore,
it is not true that moral obligations are constituted by God's
commands. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Therefore,
Divine Command Theories are not true. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="rebutta"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>17.1.3)
Rebuttal to a potential theistic objection </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A
theist might claim that Alex is a person but not a moral agent, so
it's not true that it would be immoral of Alex to create other
personal beings for the specific, deliberate and exclusive purpose of
torturing those beings for all eternity.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
if Alex is God – this objection would hold -, then Alex is not
morally good in the sense we use the word, but in some analogous
sense. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
when theist non-philosophers say that God is morally good, there is
no reason at all to suspect that they're not using the term "morally
good" in the usual sense of the words. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
fact, the same seems to apply to most philosophers: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, they try to come up with explanations as to why God creates
a world with suffering, allows moral evil, etc., based on some
arguments about how a <I>morally good</I> creator would act. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
they mean something else, their claims would be puzzling: What would
they be talking about? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
if a philosopher claims that the above is not true, and that "morally
good" is usually used in some analogous way in the case of God,
they have the burden to show that that is the case. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alternatively,
if they just want to use the term "morally good" in a
non-standard manner, they ought to define it, but that would not
block the case against DCT. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Finally,
a theist might suggest that I'm being circular, because God may have
moral properties, but has no moral obligations. However, as I
explained </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#obligations of God"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
the previous subsection</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there is no circularity: I'm </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">assessing
– </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
assuming – that he has moral obligations. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="semantic DCT"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>17.2)
Semantic DCT</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Any semantic DCT can
be refuted more easily, by taking a look at how theists themselves
use moral terms: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First, there are many theists,
who believe that Yahweh had or has a moral obligation to honor his
covenant with the ancient Hebrews. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It is apparent that their belief
that Yahweh has a moral obligation to honor his covenant with the
ancient Hebrews <I>is not a belief that God commanded Yahweh </I>to
honor his covenant with the ancient Hebrews. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second, there are also theist
philosophers who say that God has moral obligations; for instance: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Richard
Swinburne:</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> <A HREF="#noteSwinburne"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[18]</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">God has a moral obligation to
make himself known</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Swinburne is most
certainly not saying that God commanded God to make himself known, or
anything of the sort. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Third, there were
plenty of people, in different societies, who did not believe in God,
or didn't even have the <I>concept </I>of God, and yet they made
moral claims without a problem. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A theist might claim
that they had the concept, even if not the belief. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That's not true –
in many cases, the entities they believed in didn't remotely resemble
God, and had not even consider such a being -, but there is no need
to address that, since their lack of belief suffices to make the
following point: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
'Agent A has a moral obligation to do X' means 'God commands agent A
to do X', or something like it., unbelievers </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>would
plausibly immediately realize that they are affirming the existence
of God all the time. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone might object that some
semantic identities aren't transparent. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That may be true, but that is <I>not</I>
plausible in this particular case: if someone is actually making a
claim that a person issued a command forbidding some behavior, it
seems difficult to see how they would all fail to realize that
they're talking about that person. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To make the matter more concrete,
let us consider a specific example: Japan. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Japan is a country in which there
is no tradition of belief in God: the main religions – both
traditionally, for a long time, and in the present – are
Buddhism and Shinto, not Christianity, or Islam, or any other
religion that posit the existence of God, even if some of them posit
other odd entities. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
fact, today as in the past, the vast majority of people do not
believe in God – while different polling methods yield
different results, all of them agree in that it's a significant
majority. <A HREF="#notejapan">[19]</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet, clearly, and with the
exception of cases of severe mental illness, Japanese adults grasp
the meaning of moral terms, can and do use them competently, etc.,
and would realize it if they were making claims about God issuing
commands. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, they're not
making claims about commands or prohibitions issued by God, or
anything of the sort. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Hence, semantic DCT
are not true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="commanders"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>17.2.1)
Obligations and commanders</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Even
though, in the context of his metaethical argument, Craig is
concerned with moral ontology rather than moral semantics, Craig
contends that, on atheism, there are no moral obligations of
prohibitions because there is no competent authority to issue moral
commands or prohibitions: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>William
Lane Craig: </B></FONT><A HREF="#noteCraigharris"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[12]</SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moral obligations or prohibitions
arise in response to imperatives from a competent authority. For
example, if a policeman tells you to pull over, then because of his
authority, who he is, you are legally obligated to pull over. But if
some random stranger tells you to pull over, you’re not legally
obligated to do so. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now,
in the absence of God, what authority is there to issue moral
commands or prohibitions? There is none on atheism, and therefore
there are no moral imperatives for us to obey. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet,
Craig does not provide any good reasons at all to even <I>suspect</I>
that having an obligation would require having an authority issuing
commands.</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover,
the fact is that there is no <I>semantic </I>requirement. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
I explained <A HREF="#semantic DCT">earlier in this subsection</A>,
semantic DCT are not true. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone
might suggest another semantic connection. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">They
would have to explain themselves, but it seem <A HREF="#semantic DCT">the
same kind of considerations</A> would rule that out. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now,
Craig's argument is an ontological one, not a semantic one.</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
the non-theist objectivist is not challenged in the least by an
ontological challenge in absence of a successful semantic challenge. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Why
should we even <I>suspect</I> that without such a competent authority
issuing commands, moral obligations would not exist, if the semantics
of the words do not require it? </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover,
as I showed earlier, <A HREF="#ontological DCT">ontological DCT
aren't true, either</A>, so clearly no such requirement exists. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Finally, Craig's police officer
analogy does not work, either: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If the police officer analogy is
an attempt to introduce a semantic challenge, suggesting that moral
obligations entail a Supreme Commander by the meaning of the words,
then the challenge fails, for the previously explained reasons. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second, if it's not meant to
suggest any semantic requirement, then Craig provides no good reason
to suspect that morality and legality are indeed analogous in the
case under consideration. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Furthermore,
<A HREF="#ontological DCT">the case against ontological DCT</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">still
applies. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, in brief,
Craig's argument about a "competent authority" provides no
good reason to even suspect that a lack of a Supreme Commander would
be in any way a problem for morality. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="truthvalue"></A><A NAME="Copan"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>18)
Copan's metaethical arguments against evolutionary naturalism</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>With
slightly different terminology Paul Copan also makes a metaethical
argument against </FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><A HREF="#EN">EN</A><A HREF="#notecopan">[3]</A></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Given
that Copan's claims are similar to those of some of the previous
arguments, there is no need to add </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#Copan"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">this
section</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>.
However, I decided to add it in order to address some specific points
in greater detail. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="moraltruths"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>18.1)
Moral truths and valuing</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Copan
begins by arguing that humans possess a built-in moral sense, and
that there are some moral <I>truths</I> that we can't fail to know. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Copan:</B></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notecopan"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[3]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(p.
142)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Likewise,
despite flawed moral judgments, there still are certain moral truths
that we can’t </FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I>not </I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">know—unless
we suppress our conscience or engage in self-deception.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">We
possess an in-built “yuck factor”—basic moral
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3>intuitions about the wrongness of
torturing babies for fun, of raping, mur­dering, or abusing
children. We can also recognize the virtue of kindness or
selflessness, the obligation to treat others as we would want to be
treated, and the moral difference between Mother Teresa and Josef
Stalin. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
would agree that some of those assessments are true in all possible
cases – e.g., it's always immoral to torture babies for fun -,
but others do not appear to be so. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, plausibly there is not always a moral obligation to treat
others in the way we would like to be treated. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In fact, that 'we'
applies to all humans, but clearly, a murderer has no moral
obligation to help other murderers escape justice, even if he would
want to be helped by others in that fashion. Someone might say that
the murderer has a moral obligation not to try to escape justice. But
that's not the point. Rather, the point is that it seems not all
humans always have a moral obligation to treat other humans the way
they would like to be treated. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also, let's suppose
that Bob does not want to be treated the same way Alice wants to be
treated. Does Bob always, under all circumstances, have a moral
obligation to treat Alice the way <I>he</I> would want to be treated,
regardless of how <I>she</I> wants to be treated? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
seems very implausible. Perhaps, someone might say that the proper
way of understanding treating others the way we would want to be
treated includes treating others the way </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I>they
</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">want
to be treated, because we would want to be treated in that fashion as
well. But that is not always true, either, since we do not always
have a moral obligation to treat others in the way they would want to
be treated. For instance, a murderer might want to be allowed to go
free, but we have no moral obligation to let him do so. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, it seems to that
treating others the way we would want to be treated is not always a
moral obligation, though sometimes it may well be. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As for Stalin and
Mother Theresa, we can recognize of course moral differences, but
Copan seems to be suggesting that Mother Theresa was a particularly
good person, which is at the very least very debatable. Of course,
there is no doubt that Stalin was far, far worse. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Still, those are
side issues in this context. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The key points here
are the issue of a built-in 'moral sense', and that morality is not
invented but recognized. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I've
already explained this matter through this article, so I won't get
into that any further. The important point here is that a non-theist
who accepts <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">may
well accept Copan's claims that we have a built-in moral sense, that
we do not invent morality, etc., without any complications. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
moral sense is a species-wide human trait; on a potential account
compatible with <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>, just as zurkovians might have
their <A HREF="#zarkonians">z-moral conscience</A>, humans have a
moral conscience, as a result of the evolutionary process. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Of
course, someone who accepts <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">also
has no difficulty accepting that if the members of a tribe believe
that it's morally acceptable for them to sacrifice their firstborns –
to use one of Copan's example -, they would be very mistaken. She may
go further and point out that religion often perpetuates terrible
moral mistakes, like sacrificing newborns to alleged deities or, say,
burning a woman to death just because she's the daughter of a priest
and a prostitute, as Mosaic Law monstrously commands. Incidentally,
Copan also insists that without the Law of Moses, Gentiles would
still have a conscience "written in their hearts". But
apart from the fact that the law of Moses was profoundly immoral<A HREF="#notechristianity">[11]</A>,
the claim of a conscience 'written in their hearts' is not
problematic at all, as explained earlier. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="valuinginstrumentally"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>18.2)
Valuing instrumentally and valuing finally</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>We can distinguish
between valuing some being, action, etc., instrumentally, or
finally/as a goal. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Roughly, that can be
characterized as follows: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>a) Agent A values X
instrumentally if and only if A values X as a means to obtaining some
other thing Y. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>b) Agent A values X
finally, or as a goal, if A values X even for its own sake, even if X
does not help A obtain any other thing Y. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For instance, it may
be that a chimpanzee – say, Jack -, values a makeshift spears
as a means of getting bushbabies (i.e., food). In that case, Jack
instrumentally values the makeshift spear. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It may be that Jack
values bushbabies meat for its own sake and not only as a means to
some end, so he values the meat finally, though perhaps it's more
accurate to say he values meat instrumentally, as a means of feeling
better by eating it. But Jack may well value his mother finally, and
be willing to defend her even if she's old and he would get nothing
out of it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
aside, so far in <A HREF="#valuinginstrumentally">this subsection</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I've
been talking about agents </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>positively
</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">valuing
things, though I've left the 'positive' implicit (which is standard
usage); now, let's consider the case of agents </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>negatively</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">valuing
things. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Generally, as with
positive valuing, agent A may value X negatively because of X itself
– i.e., regardless of X's consequences -, or because of some of
X's consequences. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Human minds are more
complex than chimpanzee minds, but the previous classification works
just as well. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For instance, a
human, Alice, might value her car instrumentally, value a business
associate both finally and instrumentally, and value her mother
exclusively finally. She might also value a hurricane negatively
because of its consequences, and not value a similar storm on an
uninhabited planet either positively or negatively, and she may well
value immoral behavior negatively on its own sake, not only for its
consequences. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
the other hand, a hypothetical <A HREF="#zarkonians">zurkovian</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">might
value humans instrumentally – for instance -, but value other
zurkovians exclusively finally, or both instrumentally and finally.
Or she might – for instance – value humans negatively
because of the consequences of human presence. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, in brief, agents
might value things positively or negatively, and might value things
for themselves, or because of some of their consequences. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As
for valuing something </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>intrinsically</B></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
that term may be used to mean the same as valuing something </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>finally</B></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and that's understandable. But there is also considerable confusion
in some metaethical arguments when the word 'intrinsic' is misused.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Now,
let's see what Copan claims: </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Copan:</B></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notecopan"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[3]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(p.
143)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Such
an affirmation of human dignity, rights,</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3>and duties is something we would readily expect
if God exists—but </FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I>not </I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">if
humans have emerged from valueless, mindless processes (more below). </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Clearly,
our ancestors valued some things positively and others negatively
long before there were any humans. But of course, on <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>,
there was no intelligence directing the process and making
evaluations. If there were some problem with entities capable of
valuing under <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>, then a </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>metaethical</I></FONT></FONT>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>argument would be a
moot one. For that matter, a tigress is not a <A HREF="#moral agents">moral
agent</A>, but she may well value a good steak, so a tigress would be
a problem for <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></FONT></FONT> <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>as
well. Of course, I do not think that valuers are a problem for <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>,
and anyone who claims that they are would have the burden, but as I
mentioned, that would no longer be a metaethical argument, and Copan
is not even </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>trying</I></FONT></FONT>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>to argue for that,
other than his general claim that consciousness is a problem for <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></FONT></FONT>
– <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>which isn't
a metaethical argument, either. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
let's consider another one of Copan's claims: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Copan:
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notecopan"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[3]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>(p.
146)</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Why
think impersonal/physical, valueless processes will produce valuable,
rights-bearing persons?</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
a potential account of morality compatible with <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>,
what the evolutionary process produced is beings with a moral sense,
and who value some things negatively and others positively. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There is no good
reason to think that such a process wouldn't produce such agents, and
on the other hand, there is plenty of good reasons to believe that
such a process can produce and has produced many valuers, with
species-wide and species-specific senses. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
the person who accepts <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
not at a disadvantage. On the contrary, it's the theist who has to
engage in serious mental gymnastics to persist in his belief in an
omniscient, omniscient, morally perfect creator despite the amount of
suffering in the world, the existence beings with imperfect moral
senses, etc. Worse, even, the theist is usually not a generic theist,
but a Christian, or a Muslim, etc., so he also has to deal with the
specific actions of the alleged creator described in the Bible or the
Quran, many of whom are profoundly evil (I argued that elsewhere, in
the case of the Bible<A HREF="#notechristianity">[11]</A>; the Quran
is relevantly similar), whereas none of those problems exist under
<A HREF="#EN">EN</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
leaving ethical challenges to theism and to specific religions aside,
the fact remains that Copan's arguments fail to present any
difficulty for morality under <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>, as explained, and
seem to be based on a confused understanding of valuing; on that
note, let's assess another claim: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Copan
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notecopan"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[3]</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>(p.
146)</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So
if humans have intrinsic, rather than instrumental (or no) value, the
deeper, more natural context offering a smoother transition is a
personal, supremely valuable God as the source of goodness and
creator of morally responsible agents. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Here, Copan is
talking about some mysterious 'intrinsic value', which he does not
define or explain. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
regardless, the point is that </SPAN></SPAN><I><B>agents value things
</B></I><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">(using
'things' broadly, encompassing other agents, behaviors, etc.).
Sometimes, they value those things instrumentally, sometimes
finally/intrinsically, sometimes both; sometimes, they value things
positively, and sometimes negatively. But there is no entity 'value'
floating around so to speak; that would be a confusion: we're just
nominalizing and using a noun instead of a verb, but that's certainly
no reason to add things to our ontology. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That aside, some
humans may well value some other humans intrinsically, of course.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Moreover,
it may be that it's </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><I><B>immoral</B></I> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
a human to value another human only instrumentally. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
none of that is a problem for <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">or
makes it a requisite to posit some mysterious entity 'value' that
somehow emerges from the evolutionary process. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">What
emerges are entities that value different things; in other words,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">valuers
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">emerge,
or more precisely evolve. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Valuers
aside, Copan claims that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">consciousness</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
a problem for naturalism. Now, it is true that consciousness emerges
from beings without minds on <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>, unless panpsychism
is true and the basic phenomenal consciousness counts as
'consciousness' in the relevant sense. But in any case, an argument
to the conclusion that consciousness is a problem for <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">no
longer a metaethical argument</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so I will not address that issue. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So, leaving
consciousness aside, the point is there is no need to argue for any
kind of weird supervenience. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">All
that is needed is that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">valuers
– </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">i.e.,
entities who value other things – evolve from non-valuers,
which does not seem to present any particular difficulty for <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">if
minds do not present a difficulty for <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>. I do not
see any good reason to believe that minds present any difficulty for
<A HREF="#EN">EN</A>, but there is no need to address that here,
since – as I mentioned – that would not be a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">metaethical</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">argument
anymore. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="arbitrariness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>18.3)
Arbitrary morality? </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Another
part of Copan's metaethical argument against <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
based on an alleged claim of 'arbitrariness'. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
Copan does not explain why the possibility that evolution could have
taken a different path would make morality </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>arbitrary
</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">under
<A HREF="#EN">EN</A>. For instance, we don't say that color is
arbitrary just because other species have different visual systems,
or because evolution could have taken a different path. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
we shouldn't say that morality would be </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>arbitrary</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">on
<A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">just
because of that. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A better description
would be 'specific to the human species and any relevantly similar
being, real or hypothetical', rather than 'arbitrary'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That aside, let's
assess Copan's arguments. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Copan
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notecopan"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[3]</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>(p.
152)</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Given
naturalism, it appears that humans could have evolved differently and
inherited rather contrary moral beliefs (“rules”) for the
“chess game” of survival. Whatever those rules, they
would still direct us toward surviving and reproducing. Ruse (with E.
O. Wilson) gives an example: instead of evolving from
“savannah-dwelling primates,” we, like termites, could
have evolved needing “to dwell in darkness, eat each other’s
faeces, and can­nibalise the dead.” </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Actually,
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3><I>we </I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">couldn't
have evolved like that, since those beings wouldn't be </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I>we.
</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
that scenario, </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3><I>we </I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">wouldn't
have evolved at all. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Also,
Copan seems to make an assumption that goes too far, for the reasons
I explained <A HREF="#Darwin">earlier</A>, namely that whether</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>any </I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">kind
of social organization would evolve in our universe in <A HREF="#strong intelligence">strongly
intelligent</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">social
beings is an empirical matter, and should not be assumed. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
the other hand, it should not be assumed that any <A HREF="#strong intelligence">strongly
intelligent</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">social
beings will have </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>exactly</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
same sense as our moral sense. In fact, it seems that different
social species with similar IQ may evolved rather different
propensities for social behavior, so the assumption in question seems
implausible to me, but it's a matter for biologists to tackle. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">All
that aside, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>if
such variation does exist, that's not a problem for </I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><A HREF="#EN">EN</A>,
either</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
as I explained </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Darwin"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">earlier</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
when I analyzed Linville's argument. Copan seems to </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>assume
</I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
that would be a problem, but gives no good reason to believe that
that would be the case. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
let's look at the matter from another point of view: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As
before, l</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">et
us suppose that, in the future, we or our descendants in fact</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">do
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">make
contact with an advanced alien civilization, and the aliens –
which/who are <A HREF="#strong intelligence">strongly intelligent</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
– </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">happen
to have not a moral sense, but something different, like a <A HREF="#zarkonians">z-moral</A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">sense.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Should we, or our
descendants, conclude that – for instance – our
assessment that the Holocaust was immoral, is unwarranted, just
because some smart aliens on another planet happened to evolve
differently, without a moral sense? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Should
we withdraw the clear assessments that, say, Hitler and Ted Bundy
were bad people, merely because some intelligent aliens orbiting a
distant star do not have a moral sense, but something only somewhat
similar instead? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Oddly,
Copan seems to assume that the answer to those and any similar
question is always 'yes', but without giving any good reasons to
believe so. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Ironically,
Copan, Linville and other theists believe that potential variation
from species to species is an advantage that theism has over <A HREF="#EN">EN</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal">
– </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">indeed,
maybe even a defeater for <A HREF="#EN">EN</A>! -, whereas in reality
that potential variation is a </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>very
serious disadvantage for theism, since it shows that the theist is
committed to a bold claim about exobiology without any good evidence
in support of it, </I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">as
I explained <A HREF="#exobiology">earlier</A>. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
aside, Copan reaches yet another unwarranted conclusion: He suggests
that practices such as so-called 'honor killings', or 'female
circumcision' somehow can't be rationally condemned if </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
true. Yet, Copan provides no good reason whatsoever to believe any of
that. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
fact, and while he's somewhat unclear on the subject, Copan appears
to believe that, under </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
whatever helps maximize survival – or, perhaps, reproductive
success -, would be morally acceptable. But that clearly does not
follow, and he once again provides no good reason in support of such
a hypothesis. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
a potential account of morality compatible with </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
humans have some moral sense that tracks some mental properties, and
humans also normally value some of those properties positively, and
others negatively. That sense and propensities evolved because they
were </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">on
average</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">conducive
to reproductive success in the ancestral environment</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>,
</I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>if</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
moral sense is entirely the product of adaptation. However, even that
would not mean that doing the right thing is always conducive to
reproductive success, or even that it was always so in the ancestral
environment. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Moreover,
on </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
our moral sense does not even have to be a sum of adaptations. It may
be a combination of adaptations and side-effects of other
adaptations, in which case the requirement of being </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>on
average</I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">conducive
to reproductive success is not even needed in all cases. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
the propensity to act immorally in some cases is also not surprising,
since our mind is the product of a process involving multiple
selection pressures, sometimes going in different directions at
different times in our past. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
brief, the claim of 'arbitrariness' fails to make a dent on the
hypothesis that </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">is
true and compatible with moral truth, moral knowledge, moral
progress, etc. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
the other hand, Copan's claims only highlight one of the theist's
unwarranted commitments – in this case, a bold unwarranted
claim about exobiology. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="explanatory power"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>18.4)
Explanatory power and bloated ontologies </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Another
objection that Copan raises</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notecopan"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[3]</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">maintains
that, on </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
adding what he calls 'objective moral values' results in a bloated
ontology, since there is no explanatory need for 'ought', and 'is'
can do the job just as well. As an example, he claims that Hitler's
actions can be explained describing that he was angry and bitter, and
had false beliefs about the Jews, etc., without using any moral
terms. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Now,
'ought' </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>statements
</I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">seem
to follow from 'is' statements of the form 'is immoral', etc., but
leaving that aside, </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>if</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">we
can explain Hitler's behavior without using moral terms, that is not
at all a good reason to even </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>suspect</I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">that
he wasn't morally evil, or that somehow morality bloats our ontology
on </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
and Copan does not explain why that would be so. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
see this, we can use two analogies, independent from each other, and
each of them sufficient to show that Copan's argument is misguided:
illness and redness. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="illnessbadness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>18.4.1)
Illness and moral badness</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="language"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>18.4.1.1)
Language</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
say we observed that Joe was screaming, moving erratically, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">We
may account for Joe's behavior by explaining that, say, he a virus
caused such-and-such effects on such-and-such organs, etc., that
caused pain, and so on. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">We
do not need to say that Joe was </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>ill,</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
order to account for his behavior.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Also,
let's say that we observed that Ahmed was behaving in an
uncharacteristic manner lately. We can explain that by pointing out
that some of the cells in his brain developed in such-and-such way –
which we may also call 'brain tumor' -, and that that had
such-and-such effect on certain parts of the brain that are
associated with certain behaviors, so the alteration affected his
behavior in such-and-such manner, and so on. Once again, we do not
need to point out that Ahmed was </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>ill</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
order to account for his behavior. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Obviously,
none of the above suggests that Joe or Ahmed wasn't ill, or that
somehow </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>illness</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">bloats
our ontology if </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
fact, it seems that we do not need to add </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">anything
at all </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
an </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ontology
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just
because Joe and Ahmed were ill</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>We
may simply posit – for instance – that humans evolved a
sense that allows us to detect some of the things around us
(including what we now may call 'ill organisms'). As language
developed, our ancestors came up with words that they used when they
perceived and/or contemplating some of them, etc. As a result, today
we have words such as 'ill'. In addition, as a result also of the
evolutionary process, we're predisposed to feel and generally respond
in certain ways when finding such organisms. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A
similar sense may be posited in the case of morality, and also
certain psychological reactions to finding morally bad organisms. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">If
a theist claims there is a difference that is relevant in this
context, they would have the burden to explain </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">why
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
is so, and why we would need to add anything to an ontology in the
moral case, always keeping in mind the following: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>First,
we can explain Joe's and Ahmed's behaviors without resorting to
illness language, but that does not entail that they were not ill, or
that our assessments about illness are unjustified or false, or that
illness bloats our ontology; generally. If we don't need to use
illness language, that is no problem for our assessments about
illness. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Second,
and as a consequence, it is not always the case that, for all X, and
for all Y, if we can explain phenomenon X without using Y-language,
then our Y-assessments are unjustified, or would commit us to a
bloated ontology, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
if the theist claims that in the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">moral
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">case,
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>if
</B></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
can explain all behavior without using moral language under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
that would be a problem, then it's up to the theist to explain why
that is so. Merely claiming that we can explain Hitler's actions
without using moral language is not enough. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Note
that an attempt to make an </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#open question"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Open
Question Argument</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">fails
here, as such an argument always does, and for the reasons explained
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#open question"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">before</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
We may additionally point out that a question like, say, 'I know that
Ahmed has a tumor in his brain, but is he ill?' does not appear to be
any less open than, say, 'I know that Lex likes to torture children
for fun, but is he a bad person?'. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might say that illness statements are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">descriptive</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
not </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">prescriptive.
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
fact, Copan raises that issue. I've already dealt with that matter
sufficiently </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#isought"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
an earlier section</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so I will refer readers to that part of this article, but here I will
point out that such an issue is beside the point in this context,
since the point is that it is not always the case that, for all X,
and for all Y, if we can explain phenomenon X without using
Y-language, then our Y-assessments are unjustified, or would commit
us to a bloated ontology, etc., so it would be up to the theist to
explain why, </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>if
</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
can explain behavior without using moral terms under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
that would be a problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
Copan fails to provide any good reason for believing that that would
be a problem. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="facts"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>18.4.1.2)
Facts</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">At
this point, a theist might say that the problem is not that we can
explain his actions without using moral language, but that we do not
need to posit moral </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">facts.
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
what are they saying? What distinction are they making? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
any case, we can make the previous analogy anyway, in the following
manner: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
only reason Copan gives for the claim that we can explain Hitler's
behavior without positing moral facts is that we can describe his
behavior in non-moral terms, and in doing so, explain why he acted as
he did. Thus, and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
the same reason</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we can similarly explain Joe's and Ahmed's behaviors without positing
illness facts. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Yet,
that does not entail that illness facts bloat our ontology: Indeed,
it seems we do not need to add </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">anything
at all</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">to
our ontology: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>We
may simply posit – for instance – that humans evolved a
sense that allows us to detect some of the things around us. As
language developed, our ancestors came up with words that they used
when they perceived and/or contemplating some of them, etc. As a
result, today we have words such as 'ill', which we can properly
apply when detecting such things (e.g., ill people). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Would
that mean that we need to posit some </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>entity
</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'illness'
above and beyond, say, animals and other agents infected with
viruses, or having cancers, etc.? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
seems clear that no further entity is required. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, it seems that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
fact</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
there are illness facts seems not to require any extra entity, so our
ontology is not bloated. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Why
would moral facts be any different, then? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">On
these accounts, we also developed psychological responses to finding
ill organisms, or morally bad ones, but that's also unproblematic
under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
theist might claim that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">both
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">illness
and moral badness are a problem under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
or try to make a relevant distinction, explaining why the moral case
is problematic. But in any case, they would have to explain </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>why</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and so the burden would be on them. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="rednessbadness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>18.4.2)
Redness and moral badness</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">According
to Copan, Hitler's behavior can be explained using only a non-moral
description, and somehow that would mean that moral facts would bloat
our ontology on </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
As we saw in the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#illnessbadness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">previous
subsection</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
Copan's claims fail to present a challenge for the person who accepts
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
now, let's take a look at the matter from another perspective. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Presumably,
what he's saying that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">all
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">behavior
can be explained with a non-moral description under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and without positing moral facts. Otherwise, the alleged lack of
explanatory power of moral facts would not be so. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
let's consider <I>our assessments </I>that, say, a man who tortures
children purely for fun is a morally evil person, or that Hitler was
a morally evil person. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Under
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
we may posit – for instance – that we may well have a
sense that allows us to ascertain moral facts, thus explaining our
behavior in making said assessments. So, it seems moral facts </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">can
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">play
such an explanatory role on </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
as color facts or illness facts do.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notefacts1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[20]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
someone might say that even if moral facts can play such role, we do
not </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">need</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">them,
and we may provide an explanation of our moral assessments excluding
them. But what would that explanation be? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might offer an alternative explanation such as the following: </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
develop a sense that makes us </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>falsely
believe</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that,
say, Hitler was a morally evil person, etc., because that was
advantageous in the ancestral environment, in the sense that it was
on average conducive to reproductive success to have such false
beliefs. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
similarly, we may offer the following explanation: </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we
developed a sense that makes us </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>falsely
believe</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that,
say, some fruits are red and others green, because that was
advantageous in the ancestral environment, in the sense that it was
on average conducive to reproductive success to have such false
beliefs. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
same could be said, of course, in the case of illness. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
question is not whether such explanations are </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">logically
compatible</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">with
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but whether they would be plausibly </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>correct
explanations</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">accepting
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true, or at least, whether they would not be improbable. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
Copan seems to imply that some explanations that do not posit moral
facts would be not only compatible with </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but also preferable, or better explanations for our observations</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">etc.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><B>why</B></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">would
such explanations be preferable? Why would, say, a moral error theory
account for our observations – including the fact that we make
moral assessments – better under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but not a color error theory, or an illness error theory? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Copan
does not provide any good reasons to even suspect so. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Perhaps</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
Copan believes that color is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">also
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and/or that illness is, but then it seems that the alleged problem is
not related to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">metaethics</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">in
particular, but it's allegedly a general problem under </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
– </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
problem Copan would have the burden to argue for, of course. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Granted,
there are theists who argue that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">all
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
our beliefs – or most of them – would at least be suspect
if </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true. However, that would no longer be a metaethical argument or
anything related to it. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="conclusion"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>19)
Conclusion</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Metaethical
arguments for theism try to use ontological, epistemic and/or
semantic considerations to make their case, but they contain numerous
confusions, from <A HREF="#intrinsic">semantic confusions</A> to even
implicit <A HREF="#exobiology">commitments to bold and unwarranted
claims about exobiology</A>, and fail to provide any good reasons to
believe that theism might be true, or that <A HREF="#EN">evolutionary
naturalism</A> might be false or incompatible with moral knowledge,
moral facts, moral truth, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notes"></A><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Notes
and references</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="linville1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[1]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Source:
Linville, Mark D., "The Moral Argument", in "The
BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology", Edited by William Lane
Craig and J. P. Moreland, © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN:
978-1-405-17657-6</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><BR></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Pages
391-448. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notecraigpod"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[2] </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Podcast:</B>
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=podcasting_main</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Debate between
William Lane Craig and Sam Harris:
</B>http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/05/transcript-sam-harris-v-william-lane-craig-debate-%E2%80%9Cis-</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>good-from-god%E2%80%9D.html</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>On-line
argument, "The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical
Foundations for Morality":</B>
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="notecopan"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[3]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Copan,
Paul, "God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality". </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Source:
http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="notereaders1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[4]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Readers
will of course use their own grasp of the terms to assess the matter,
as always. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="notemoore2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[5]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Hurka,
Thomas, "Moore's Moral Philosophy", in the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore-moral/</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="notePoE"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[6]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>At
least, it does not seem to bring any new problems if we assume that
generally the evidential Problems of Evil and Suffering fail to show,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that theism is not true. My position is
that they succeed, but that's beyond the scope of this article. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="noteanalogous"></A><A NAME="notesamegender"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[7] </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Tom's claim is not
true, by the way, but that's not the point here. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="chimps"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[8]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
clarify that they're adult humans because, say, a case of chimpanzees
bayoneting babies for fun might raise issues that would be a
distraction at this point. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notecharacter"></A><A NAME="notetelepath"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[9]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>There
might be exceptions: for instance, we might make the assessment
believing that A is a telepath, or got the information from a chain
leading to a telepath. But that's not what normally happens, and not
exactly a reasonable way for us to try to ascertain truth. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Also,
we might assess that a being has a belief – perhaps, on her own
existence – only on account the way she looks (i.e., looks like
a living adult h</SPAN>uman); however, that might also more or less
indirectly be based on behavioral observations; in any case, <I>at
the very least</I>, in cases in which some mental property varies
from human to human, it's clear that observations of behavior are the
way to track such property. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="noterape"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[10]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It
is possible to construct hypothetical scenarios </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
show that the claim is false, so another condition – like
stipulating that the rape in question is for fun, or just for power –
is required. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
that's only a secondary issue, so we may as well assume for the sake
of the argument that the claim about rape is true. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="notechristianity"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[11]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That's
explained in another article: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
line:
http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/moral-case-against-christianity.html</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
download:
http://www.4shared.com/document/cVCYWgqD/A_Moral_Case_Against_Christian.html</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Briefly,
I'm not suggesting that, say, <I>every precept </I>of the Law of
Moses was immoral. However, it contains many <I>horrendously evil
commands</I>, and many more less evil but still quite immoral, so as
a result, we can justly say that, overall, the Law of Moses was a
profoundly immoral law. In any case, we can give more details by
considering the commands on a case by case basis. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Similarly,
not every one of Yahweh's actions was immoral, but then again, the
same can be said about the actions of a serial killer. Given the
atrocities he engaged in, he is definitely not morally good. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Also,
to be clear, I'm not suggesting he exists; just as we can say that
Darth Vader isn't morally good without making a claim that Darth
Vader exists, we can make a similar assessment about Yahweh, or other
hypothetical characters, based on the description of them in some
story. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
details of all of these matters are beyond the scope of this article,
and are given in the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/moral-case-against-christianity.html"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">other</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20">
</FONT></SPAN><A HREF="http://www.4shared.com/document/cVCYWgqD/A_Moral_Case_Against_Christian.html"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">article</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so I will refer readers to it. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="noteCraigharris"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[12] </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/05/transcript-sam-harris-v-william-lane-craig-debate-%E2%80%9Cis-</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>good-from-god%E2%80%9D.html</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notechimps"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[13]</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
does not mean that humans are the only animals that are </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral agents"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>moral
agents</FONT></FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>We
know enough about evolution to know that humans evolved gradually
from other species, and that there is no clear-cut line. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Whether
some </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>extant</I></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">non-human
</FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">animals
– such as bonobos or chimpanzees – are moral agents as
well is more debatable, but there is no need to get into that –
we may as well assume here that they are not, and that's no problem
for </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
either. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="noteintuitions"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[14]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Of
course, readers will make their own intuitive assessments of these
issues. But that's always the case. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="notematerialism"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[15]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I
have doubts about the coherence of the material/non-material
distinction, and to some extent the physical/non-physical
distinction. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
I will leave that aside for the sake of the argument, and show that
in any event, Craig's points or similar ones do not pose any
challenge for the non-theist objectivist. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="notemetaonline"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[16]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="noteDCT"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[17]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might also use the expression 'Divine Command Theory' to denote other
theistic metaethical frameworks, even if commands do not play a
central role. That's of course a matter of notation. In this article,
the term is limited to either the kind of semantic or ontological
theories that I've </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#failute of divine command theory"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">described</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="notepersonal"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[18]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might wonder whether </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#zarkonians"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">zurkovians</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">are
moral agents at all, and suggest that Alex might not be one, either. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
it seems clear to me that a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">personal
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">being
is a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral agents"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
agent</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">except,
perhaps, in the case of babies and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">maybe</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a
few other exceptions involving mental limitations, but that is not
the case here. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alternatively,
we can argue as follows: if Alex is not a moral agent, then the
creator has no moral properties, and so theism is not true. Hence, we
may assume that Alex is a moral agent. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="noteSwinburne"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[18]
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Swinburne,
Richard "The Existence of God", Second Edition.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Cla</SPAN></FONT>rendon
Press Oxford. Page 130. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notejapan"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[19]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Religion_in_Japan</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[20]</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="notefacts1"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Of
course, if we do posit – for instance – that we may well
have a sense that allows us to ascertain moral facts, thus explaining
our behavior in making moral assessments, and conclude that that
moral facts </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">can
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">play
such an explanatory role on </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
as color facts or illness facts do, what we're saying is that we have
a sense that allows us to detect and track certain things. We're not
saying that there is some mysterious entity called 'fact' over and
above those things. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
the explanatory power of 'facts' should not be understood as positing
any mysterious beings in the case of color, illness or for that
matter planets, cars or mathematics, so anyone claiming morality is
in some way exceptional when it comes to facts, and that that's a
problem for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
should defend their claims.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#231f20"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-84480299343203692052012-01-27T04:13:00.007-08:002013-06-07T05:32:48.234-07:00The Moral Argument: Why Craig's metaethical case for theism fails<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="LibreOffice 4.0.3.3 (Windows)">
<META NAME="AUTHOR" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20120124;3080475">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20130607;9321914">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" DIR="LTR">
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This is an outdated argument.
The latest version is <A HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-reply-to-craigs-metaethical-argument.html">here</A>.
</FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#00ae00"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Angra Mainyu"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=5 STYLE="font-size: 17pt"><B>The
Moral Argument: Why Craig's metaethical case for theism fails</B></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Introduction"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>1)
Introduction</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Some terminology"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>2)
Some terminology</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#The premises of the argument"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>3)
The premises of Craig's metaethical argument</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Premise 1"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>3.1)
The first premise</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#premise 2"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>3.2)
The second premise</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Objectiveness"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>3.2.1)
Objectiveness</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Moral Values"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>3.2.2)
Moral values and moral duties</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Moral ontology"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>4)
Moral ontology and moral semantics</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Color Ontology"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>4.1)
Color and morality: a useful analogy</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#World Without Greenness"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>4.1.1)
A world without greenness, and a world without goodness</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Color"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>4.1.2)
Color ontology</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 2cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Moral ontology a few more"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>4.1.3)
Moral ontology</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>5)
Moral semantics </B></U></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Ontology and semantics"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>6)
Ontology and semantics: a crucial connection</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Color Ontology once again"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>6.1)
Color ontology, part II</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Moral ontology once again"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>6.2)
Moral ontology, part II</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Moral objectivism under nontheism"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>7)
Moral objectivism and non-theism</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Semantic challenges"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>7.1)
Semantic challenges</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Empirical challenge"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>7.2)
Empirical challenges</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Arguments from Authority"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>7.3)
Arguments from authority</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Competent authority"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>8)
Moral duties, moral prohibitions, competent authorities, and Divine
Command Theories (DCT)</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Going the extra mile"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>9)
The failure of Divine Command Theories</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Metaphysical possibility"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>9.1)
Metaphysical possibilities</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Moral obligations of God"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>9.2)
The moral obligations of a personal creator</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Are humans just animals"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>10)
Are humans 'just' animals?</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Herd Morality"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>11)
The so-called "herd morality"</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Materialism"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>12)
Materialism</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#freedom"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>13)
Freedom, libertarian freedom, and determinism</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Accountability"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>14)
Accountability</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Motivation"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>15)
Motivation</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Conclusion"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>16)
Conclusion</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Notes and references"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><U><B>Notes
and references</B></U></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Introduction"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>1)
Introduction</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
this article, I will show that William Lane's Craig metaethical
argument does not provide any support for theism (I also posted a
more comprehensive reply to theistic metaethical arguments –
which including a reply to Craig's argument at least as detailed as
this one – <A HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/metaethical-arguments-provide-no.html">here</A>).
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In older
versions, the argument is formulated as: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>William
Lane Craig: </B></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#sinnott"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[1]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#notepodcast"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[2]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P1: If God
does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P2:
Objective moral value exist. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P3: God
exists. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In more
recent versions, he adds 'moral duties' to the formulation: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>William
Lane Craig: </B></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notefivearguments"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[3]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#notecraigharris"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[4]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><A HREF="#notemetaonline"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[5]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P1: If God
does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P2:
Objective moral values and duties do exist. <BR>P3: Therefore, God
exists. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">My strategy
will be to show that Craig's arguments provide no good reason to
suspect that the first premise is true, in any of the versions of the
argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Before I go
on, I'd like to point out that this counter-argument is not based on
any novel and/or original ideas. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In most
cases, I got the ideas from various sources; in a few cases, I came
up with them, but this metaethical argument has been discussed for
quite some time, so I have no good reason to think I'm the first
person to come up with them. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Some terminology"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>2) Some
terminology </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1)
Craig calls his argument the "Moral Argument"<A HREF="#sinnott">[1]</A>,
but I will refer to it as a metaethical argument, for the sake of
accuracy. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">2)
Unless other wise specified, I will use the symbol " when I mean
to quote Craig, and ' <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">when
I'm not. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For instance, if I post "herd
morality", I mean to quote Craig, but not if I say 'objective
greenness'. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="moral agent"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">3) By a 'moral agent' I mean a
being who has moral properties (e.g, she may be morally good, morally
bad, etc.), and/or some of whose actions have moral properties. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To
be clear, moral agency is <I>not</I> about whether it's morally good
or bad to treat a being in some way. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, it's immoral for humans to torture cats for fun, but that
does not mean that cats are moral agents. They are not. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">4)
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I
will use the word 'argument' loosely, to refer to both the formal
argument, and the informal arguments used to support the premises of
the formal argument. I think this is a common way of speaking, and
context should prevent any ambiguity despite some notational abuse. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="The premises of the argument"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>3) The
premises of Craig's metaethical argument</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this section, I will analyze the premises of Craig's metaethical
argument, in particular the meaning of some obscure terms. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Premise 1"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>3.1) The
first premise </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
first premise in Craig's metaethical argument states: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notepodcast"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[2]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P1: If God
does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notefivearguments"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[3]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">If
God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">I
will analyze the terms 'objective', 'moral values', and 'moral
duties' </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#Premise 2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">later</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">,
so in this subsection, I will focus on the meaning of 'God'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Now,
there are definitions of 'God' (e.g., 'an omnipotent, omniscient,
morally perfect being, creator of all other beings'), but it's not
clear whether Craig provides one in the context of his metaethical
argument: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">On
one hand, in his debate with Sam Harris, Craig says that asking
"Well, why is God good?" is like asking why bachelors are
unmarried, and some of the language suggests that he uses "the
greatest conceivable being" as the meaning of 'God'. </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notecraigharris"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[4]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">On
the other hand, Craig also says that Anselm "saw"</FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notecraigharris"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[4]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">that
God is the greatest conceivable being, which suggests Craig is making
a claim about one of God's properties, not providing a definition. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">While
we don't need to define most words we use, since there is a usually a
general understanding of the meaning by competent speakers of a
language due to the common usage of such words to describe and/or
name familiar things (in a broad sense of 'things', like cars, pain,
trees, music, etc.), that does not appear to be the case with the
word 'God', at least outside philosophy of religion. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">For
instance, in addition to Harris' claim – which did not appear
to be seen as absurd by the audience -, personally, I've encountered
plenty of non-theists – including many former Christians –
who have no problem saying that God is not good, not great, etc., -
and by 'God' of course they don't mean something like 'an omnipotent,
omniscient, morally perfect being, creator of all other beings', but
probably something like 'the entity described in the Bible and
presented as the creator'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Granted,
in the context of this metaethical argument, it's clear that by
'God', Craig does not mean anything like 'the entity described in the
Bible'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">However,
the lack of precision adds to the general obscurity of the argument;
I will have to use the word 'God' nonetheless, despite the
significant ambiguity, but I will clarify when needed. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="premise 2"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>3.2) The
second premise</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
second premise in Craig's metaethical argument states, in the recent
formulation: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepodcast"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[2]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Objective moral values and duties
do exist. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In the older one, duties are not
mentioned. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But let's see what Craig says
about those terms: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Objectiveness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>3.2.1)
Objectiveness</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On the issue of objectiveness,
Craig says: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notefivearguments"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[3]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Second,
there’s the distinction between being </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><I>objective
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">or
</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><I>subjective.
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">By
“objective” I mean </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">“</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">independent
of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean
“dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that
there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or
bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say
that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions
are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Craig
uses the Holocaust to provide an example, saying that it was morally
wrong regardless of the Nazis' belief that it was right, and it would
have been morally wrong even if the Nazis had won the war and
brainwashed everyone into thinking that it was right. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I
will assess the issue of moral ontology and moral semantics </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Moral ontology"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">later</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
but here, I will just point out that 'X is immoral' does not mean
'Agent A believes that X is immoral' (that would be </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><I>circular</I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">),
so that makes Craig's requirement somewhat odd. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Perhaps,
if he had used words such as 'feel', 'approve', etc., in the
definition, that </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><I>might
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">have
matters more clear; perhaps, 'subjective' should be defined in terms
of how similar the use of a word is, for different speakers. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="objectiveconditions"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">But
in any case, let's point out the following. <BR>Let's say that the
following conditions – which Craig accepts – are met: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">1)
Different people mean the same thing by moral terms (such as
'immoral', 'morally good', etc., or terms that are translated as
'immoral', 'morally good', etc., from other languages into English). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">2)
Different languages all have basic moral terms that can be correctly
translated to other languages. <BR>For instance, terms like 'morally
good', 'morally bad', 'immoral', 'morally neutral', and 'morally
wrong' have equivalents in all languages. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">3)
There is no circularity (i.e., 'X is immoral', does not mean 'A
believes that X is immoral', or anything like that). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">This
condition should go without saying, but given Craig's definition of
'objective' and 'subjective', I include it just in case. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">4)
Moral statements are not, in any way, about the speaker in her
capacity of speaker. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">For
instance, the claim that the Holocaust is morally wrong is about,
well, the Holocaust, not about the feelings of the speaker, or
anything like that. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">This
condition seems to follow from 1), but I thought I'll specify it
separately, just in case someone might interpret 1) differently. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">5)
Moral statements like 'X is immoral', 'X is morally good', etc., are
sometimes true; for instance, the Holocaust was immoral. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Then,
if those conditions are met, the objectivity condition Craig posits
is met: everything in his arguments in support of the second premise
indicates that what he's claiming is that some behaviors are indeed
immoral, no matter what people think, how they feel, etc. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">On
this note, it's important to realize that despite Craig's talk of
objective "values", or "duties", the question of
what the truth-value of moral </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><I>statements
</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">depends
on is a semantic one. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Granted,
someone might argue that, without a creator with such-and-such
properties, there would not be basic moral terms with the same
meaning across speakers, cultures and/or languages, but that would
have to be argued for, and the burden would be on the theist. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Moreover,
that would be a very implausible claim: for example, species-wide
senses do not appear to require the existence of God, and as long as
there is some species-wide sense, it seems it's entirely possible for
there to be shared basic terms that refer to the properties tracked
by that sense. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Also,
generally, when it comes to something that is part of our daily
experience, such terms usually do exist. For instance, terms such as
'adult', 'child', 'alive', 'dead', 'pain', 'fear', 'pleasure' seem to
exist across cultures, and have counterparts in all languages. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Someone
might argue that all of that requires the existence of God, but that
would have to be argued for. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Alternative,
someone might say that in absence of God, we could have the language,
but the properties wouldn't exist, so condition 5) would not be met.
That also has to be argued for, of course. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
let's stipulate that morality meets the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#objectiveconditions"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">requirements</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I
explained above – and so, let's grant that premise 2 is true -,
and let's see whether Craig's arguments show that God exists. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Moral Values "></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><B>3.2.2)
Moral</B> <B>values and moral duties</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Another
distinction that Craig makes is between moral values and moral
duties. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">According
to Craig, the former has to do with good and bad, and the latter with
right and wrong, and with moral obligation. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notefivearguments"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[3]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">He
presents some examples as a means to try to clarify that, but his
examples are puzzling: for instance, he says that it would be good
for you to become a doctor, or a diplomat, or a firefighter, or a
homemaker, but you have no moral obligation to become any of those,
specifically, or all of them – and you can't do all of them. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">However,
while it's true that there is no moral obligation in that case, it's
not at all clear how it would be <I>morally </I>good for you to
become any of those things – not in all cases, anyway. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">In
fact, in most cases, it seems to me that becoming a doctor, a
diplomat, etc. - or for that matter a mathematician, or a physicist,
etc. -, would be not be <I>morally </I>good or bad, but morally
neutral. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">There
may be cases in which one has a moral obligation to become something
in particular: perhaps, that's the only profession that is within
one's reach and can provide an income sufficient to fulfill one's
obligation towards one's children – and it's not harmful to
others. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">I
think one can also construct hypothetical scenarios in which it would
be immoral to become one of the above – even if, perhaps, not
too realistic -, but there is no need to. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">The
point here is that the general claim that those actions are morally
good appears very weak. Readers will of course use their own
intuitions, but it seems counterintuitive to me, especially as a
broad claim, apparently applicable to most if not all cases. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">That
is not to say that there is no distinction between what's morally
good and what's morally obligatory, though. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">For
instance, it may be that some heroic actions are morally good, but
refraining from doing them is not morally bad, but morally neutral. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">So,
that would be a case of an action that is morally good, but not
morally obligatory. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">In
any event, the non-theist need not take a stance on this distinction,
or try to elucidate it. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">In
order to accept the second premise, it's sufficient for the
non-theist to accept the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#objectiveconditions"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">conditions</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">I
mentioned earlier, and then the Holocaust was morally wrong
regardless of what everyone believes, etc. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Moral ontology"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>4) Moral
ontology</B></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><B>and
moral semantics</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
I mentioned earlier, Craig's metaethical argument for theism is an
argument about moral ontology, not about moral semantics, as he
explains in <A HREF="#notecraigharris">his debate with Sam Harris</A>.
</FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
particular, Craig is not claiming – at least, not in that
context – that, say, 'X is morally wrong' means the same as
'God forbids X', or something along those lines. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Craig
illustrates the distinction by means of the example of light: he
points out that people understood the concept 'light' well before
there was any understanding of what Craig calls its "physical
nature". </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">He
says that one can similarly understand the meaning of moral terms
without being <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">"aware"</SPAN></SPAN>
that moral goodness is <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">"grounded
in God"</SPAN></SPAN>. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now,
there are a number of interesting points here, but the first one is
the following: <I>why would an atheist be expected to provide any
account of moral ontology? </I></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">After all, if an ontology of
light can be provided now (which is debatable, but let's say so),
that was not the case for the vast majority of time that humans have
been around. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The same goes for an ontology of,
say, color – even assuming that a correct ontology of some of
those entities, properties, etc., can be given. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On the other hand, if we consider
other properties and/or phenomena, there seems to be no good answer
to that kind of questions – not yet, anyway: what's the
ontology of, say, love? Desire? Intelligence? </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, in any event, an atheist
does not have to propose an ontology in order to reject the claim
that there is no objective morality without God. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Just as an atheist would have
good no reason to accept a claim that there is no light, or no
objective color without God <I>just</I> because she does not know
anything about the ontology of light, or of colors (or color
properties), she has no good reason to accept the claim that there is
no objective morality if God does not exist <I>just</I> because she
knows nothing about moral ontology. <BR>Instead, it is incumbent on
the claimant – in other words, the theist defender of the
metaethical argument – to show that if God does not exist, then
there is no objective morality, by showing that any such ontology
would be impossible – or at least, very implausible. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That aside, it's not the case
that the theist is somehow in a better position, epistemically
speaking, just because he claims that moral values and duties are
"grounded in God", in case the atheist does not have any
theory of the ontology of morality. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For that matter, someone could
have claimed that green, red and other colors are 'grounded in the
gods', or in God, or something else, but unless the claimant has good
reasons to believe that the claims in question are true, he is in
fact in a <I>worse </I>epistemic situation than the person who
recognizes that she does not have knowledge of the ontology of the
properties, things, etc., under consideration – since he's
making an unfounded claim. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4.1)
Color and morality: a useful analogy</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Color Ontology"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">As
an example used to illustrate the issue of objectiveness <A HREF="#notepodcast">[2]</A>,
Craig points out that even if everyone were colorblind, there would
be a difference between green and red, and the same goes for
morality: there would be a difference between right and wrong, good
and bad, etc., even if no one could see that. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While not necessary to refute
Craig's arguments, the color analogy turns out to be useful to
illustrate a few relevant issues: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="World Without Greenness"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4.1.1) A
world without greenness, and a world without goodness </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">After claiming that even in a
world of colorblind people, there would be a difference between red
and green, Craig also goes from that to say that somehow moral values
are external to the body, and exist "out there" so to
speak. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In a sense, that is acceptable,
but we have to be careful not to fall into a trap of inferring some
ontological claim about some objects 'greenness', or 'moral goodness'
which exists somewhere 'out there', above and beyond green or morally
good beings. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let me explain: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If there is an account of color
ontology available to us, it seems it's in term of light of certain
frequencies, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But imagine a universe where
there is no such light: for instance, the early universe right after
the Big Bang would be an example. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now, in that universe, there
would be no red or green objects. Another way to say the same is to
say that the properties 'greenness' and 'redness' are not
instantiated. But that's only a change in terminology. It does not
suggest at all that there is a need to posit some object 'greenness'
as the 'foundation of greenness', which exists necessarily and
independently of green objects, or anything of the sort. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">And if the 'foundation of
greenness', of redness, etc., are precisely photons with certain
frequencies, etc., then the fact that a universe without any of them
is conceivable, and seems to have existed, is no problem for a claim
that there is objective color, in the sense that is relevant in this
thread: for instance, some Nazi uniforms in World War II weren't red,
and they would not have been red – given the same composition –
even if the Nazis had won the war and indoctrinated everyone into
believing that they were red. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Furthermore, while I said
'universe' above, even if at some point there was not a single green
object in the whole of reality – the actual world, if you like
-, that too would be no problem for color objectivity. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now, imagine a universe without
humans, or any other moral agents. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In such a world, there is a sense
in which there would be no moral goodness or badness – namely,
there would be no good or bad people, actions, etc. -, but – as
in the case of color -, that is no problem for the stance that there
is a difference between right and wrong, good and bad, objective
morality, and so on. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In fact, if the universe was like
that in the past – if there was no good or bad entity; in other
words, if moral properties weren't instantiated then -, that too
would be no problem for moral objectivity. <BR>If someone claimed
otherwise, they would have to make a case for it. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But their claims would have to be
based on moral <I>semantics</I>, since they would have to argue that
the there is something in the meaning of moral terms that sets them
apart from color terms when it comes to the adequacy of an ontology
that does not require that the properties in question – namely,
moral properties vs. color properties – be instantiated
necessarily. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That said, let's take a closer
look at color and moral ontology: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Color"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4.1.2)
Color ontology</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">An ontology of color might say –
for instance – the property 'greenness' is the same as the
property of emitting and/or reflecting photons in wavelengths within
certain ranges, gives a list of such frequencies, etc.. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We can observe the following
facts: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First, the account is given in
technical terms, and after considerable advances in physics. There is
no ontological theory of color given in non-technical, non-color
terms, unless one counts things like 'whatever elicits the experience
that we usually have when we use our respective color terms' as
giving an ontological account of color (or, if you like, of
greenness, redness, etc.). </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That shouldn't be surprising:
after all, why would non-technical languages have different words
that refer to the same property? </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Second,
as I explained <A HREF="#World Without Greenness">above</A>, the
possibility of a world without any green objects, red objects, or
generally objects with any color at all is not a problem for
objective color. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There is no need to posit a
metaphysically necessary green object, or anything of the sort. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Third, science can be used to
learn about color properties, but in order to discover the
connections between frequencies and colors, we need to trust human
color intuitions, at least under certain controlled conditions –
else, we simply did not know what it is that we need to match, and no
scientific study of color would be doable. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Fourth – maybe not
important, but just to be thorough -, there appears to be no semantic
equivalence between claims about color statements and statements
about wavelengths. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For a competent English speaker,
the question 'I know it reflects such-and-such wavelengths, but is it
actually red?' remains open, at least from a semantic point of view –
i.e., before learning between the connections between them, and even
if the person understands both the technical and the non-technical
terms. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That, however, is not a problem
for an ontology of color, it seems. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">There
is a crucial point that I will leave for <A HREF="#Color Ontology once again">later</A>,
but first let's turn back to moral ontology. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Moral ontology a few more"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>4.1.3)
Moral ontology</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First – and keeping the
color example in mind – there appears to be no good reason to
assume that a correct ontology of, say, goodness, would involve a
simple description in terms of other non-technical terms, like
greatest happiness, pleasure, satisfaction of desires, etc. - at
least, a claim that we should expect that would have to be argued
for. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moreover, for most of the history
of our species, no such account of color was available, and it took a
lot of development of physics in order for one to be available. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given the above, it might be that
psychology research has to advance considerably, introduce new terms,
etc., before we can come up with a plausible account of moral
properties in terms other than non-moral terms, especially
considering that the science of psychology appears not to be nearly
as developed as physics yet. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, there seems to be no good
reason to assume one such account is right around the corner, either,
or that it's doable only with non-technical terminology, or mostly
non-technical terminology – unless, perhaps, one is willing to
have a very long and convoluted system. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second, it seems that we
shouldn't assume, just because of the objectiveness of morality, that
an ontological account of morality, moral properties, etc., would
account for moral properties in terms of properties that would
necessarily be instantiated, or entities that would exist
necessarily, or even that always existed. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
point is that we should not assume that a lack of instantiation of a
property such as moral goodness – i.e., the lack of morally
good agents or actions -, in some possible scenario is not a problem
for moral objectiveness in the sense which is relevant here: namely –
and to use two examples Craig brings up -, that the Holocaust was
immoral regardless of what anyone believed, a man who tortures
children for fun is morally bad</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notepodcast"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[2]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
etc. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">While a theist might claim that,
because of the semantics of moral terms, moral properties are
different from color properties in some significant sense, that would
have to be argued for, and the burden would be on the claimant. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">My point here is that that it
shouldn't be assumed just from objectiveness that moral properties
were always instantiated. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Third, it seems there is no good
reason to think that future science can't be helpful in discovering
moral truths – as long, of course, as there are such truths. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On this point, someone might
insist on the usual claim that science tells us what is, not what
ought to be – or something like that. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, if science can be used
to discover what <I>is </I>morally good, or what <I>is </I>immoral,
etc., the moral 'ought' follows at once. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But there appears to be no good
reason to assume that science can't find answers to questions about
goodness, immorality, etc., as it can in the color case. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Again, those claiming otherwise
would have to justify the difference. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted, just as the science of
color needs to trust human color vision, at least in controlled
conditions, the same would be the case with regard to the human moral
sense. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, that alone is not an
objection to the use of science to elucidate moral questions –
else, it would be an objection also in the case of color, or light,
or pretty much anything. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given morality's greater
complexity, we should expect that a science of morality would be a
lot <I>more difficult </I>than a science of color, but the 'ought'
vs. 'is' objection has nothing to do with that, and it seems the
objection based on it amounts to a baseless assertion – again,
as long as there is objective morality. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Alternatively, someone might also
say something like: 'You can make a machine that detects green
objects. But how would a machine ascertain whether a behavior is
morally good?'</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That's more a question related at
most to moral epistemology, which is not what Craig's argument is
about, but we can consider the matter: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It seems that humans often can
ascertain whether a certain behavior is morally good, and they do
that in a clearly finite number of steps. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If future scientists can figure
out what that algorithm is – for instance -, and/or come up
with a more precise description of goodness, etc., than that given by
our usual moral terms, and develop an alternative algorithm, then a
future supercomputer would probably be able to ascertain what's
morally good, bad, etc., much faster than any human could, without
the difficulties associated with human weaknesses and propensities
that the computer would not have, and even in cases that would be
very difficult for humans. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of course, it's also conceivable
that no future scientists will ever figure that out. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, the point is that apart
from the difficulty of its complexity, there does not appear to be
anything particularly salient in the case of morality (or moral
goodness, etc.) that would make it any more beyond scientific
understanding and/or detection than, say, color is. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">By
the way, the above (i.e., the supercomputer, etc.) does not seem to
be even incompatible with theism<A HREF="#NotePoE">.[6] </A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: #ffff00"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Fourth,
the fact is that we </SPAN><I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">already
have </SPAN></I><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">words to
describe moral properties, and that's precisely our usual moral
terms. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">There
appears to be no pressing reason to come up with an alternative way
of describing them – apart from no good reason to think we can
do so in the short term, given the previous points about the
difficulties involved. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Granted,
it might be useful to have a more fine-grained description. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">It
would probably be very useful to have a supercomputer like the one I
described above. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">However,
none of that is any cause for concern for the non-theist, who does
not have any burden to present any ontology of morality, for all the
aforementioned reasons. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Fifth,
in particular, if a theist presents an ontological theory such as
some Divine Command Theory (DCT), it's up to the theist to defend it,
and the non-theist has any burden to present an alternative. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Of
course, if the theist can successfully argue for DCT, that would
establish theism in some of its variants (which one would depend on
how 'God' is construed, and what that particular version of DCT
actually says), but showing that DCT succeeds is, again, a burden
exclusively upon the theist, and that's a burden that cannot properly
be discharged just by pointing out that the atheist has no
alternative hypothesis.</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">Moreover,
just as – if no one had come up with the Theory of Evolution
yet -, a theist who posited a biblical creation story as a hypothesis
about the origin of humans wouldn't be in an epistemically better
position just because he has a hypothesis, neither would having a
hypothesis – such as DCT -, on its own, put the theist in a
stronger epistemic position at all. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="background: transparent">In
fact, if the theist can provide no sufficient reasons to justify his
belief that his hypothesis is true, then his position is far weaker
than that of the person who simply recognizes that they do not have
any such hypotheses. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Sixth – though perhaps not
important, but just for the sake of thoroughness -, we shouldn't
assume that an ontological account needs to semantically close moral
questions, in order to be correct. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For instance, the question 'I
know it reflects such-and-such wavelengths, but is it actually
green?' seems to open, at least from a semantic point of view: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Even if we specify the 'such and
such', and even if a person grasps both the non-technical color terms
and the technical physics terms, they would still need to do some
experiments – or study those already done -, in order to learn
the connections between the two; it seems they can't make the
connection just by means of conceptual analysis. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, generally speaking, open
questions are not so problematic for ontological accounts put in
technical terms. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Perhaps, someone might suggest
that the case of morality is different in a relevant sense in that
regard, given the difference in the way we assess, say, goodness vs.
greenness. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, that would have to be
argued for, since it seems it does not follow from the general
conditions for having an ontology that questions of the sort must be
semantically closed. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Moral Semantics"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>5) Moral
semantics </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">While
Craig does not claim in this context that 'X is immoral' means
something like 'X is forbidden by God', and in general is not
concerned with moral semantics but with moral ontology in the context
of his metaethical argument</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notecraigharris"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[4]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
I will dedicate this section to some moral semantics, since that will
be relevant to my counterpoints later on. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now, I will not make any claims
about what 'X is immoral', 'X is morally good', etc., mean; rather, I
will make claims – and will support them – about some of
the things that such terms <I>do not </I>mean. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Somewhat more precisely, in this
section I will argue that 'X is immoral', does not mean 'X is
forbidden by G' (or 'G forbids X'), or anything of the sort, for any
creator, any conscious being <SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">G,
etc.</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">I
will argue that </SPAN>'X is morally good' does <I>not </I>mean 'X
resembles entity G', for any such entities, that 'X is morally
obligatory', does <I>not</I> mean 'G commands X'; that 'A has a moral
obligation to do X' does not mean 'G commands A to do X', and so on. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First, I will consider the case
in which 'G' stands for 'God', since it's the most relevant here by
far. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now, the concept of God is
unclear in the context of Craig's metaethical argument, but in any
case, there are examples of groups of people that don't have any of
the concepts of God used in present-day philosophy. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted, they often believed or
believe in some powerful beings that are in English called 'gods'
sometimes, or 'spirits', 'demons', etc., and they have the
corresponding concepts, but those entities do not resemble anything
that Craig or other philosophers would call 'God'. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Indeed, the <I>concepts </I>are
(or were) very different: in many cases, there was nothing in the
concepts they used that entailed omnipotence, or omniscience, or
moral perfection, or even moral goodness, or that those entities were
the creators of all things, or the greatest conceivable being,
maximally great being, etc. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, all human social groups use
moral terms – at least, basic ones like 'immoral', 'morally
good', 'morally bad' -, so humans clearly can and do grasp the
meaning of 'morally good', 'immoral', etc. (or equivalents in other
languages), even if they do not have a concept of God. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now, if 'X is immoral' means
something like 'God forbids X', how come all those people made claims
of immorality while they didn't believe in God (in any of the usual
present-day philosophical meanings of the word; I'll just say 'God'
for short), or even have a concept of God? </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone might suggest that they
had a concept of God, but just didn't bother to invent a word to name
it. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, that seems implausible.
How would they come about such a concept, in a way that would not
prompt them to make up a word for it? </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still, even that would not be a
problem: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If 'X is immoral' meant something
like 'God forbids X', people would have immediately realized that
they were affirming the existence of God all the time. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone might object that some
semantic identities aren't transparent. That may be true, but that is
not plausible in this case: if someone is actually making a claim
that God issued a command forbidding some behavior, it seems
difficult to see how they would all fail to realize that they're
saying it. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">To make the matter more concrete,
let us consider a specific example: Japan. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Japan is a country in which there
is no tradition of belief in God: the main religions – both
traditionally, for a long time, and in the present – are
Buddhism and Shinto, not Christianity, or Islam, or any other
religion that posit the existence of God. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
fact has not changed: in fact, today as in the past, the vast
majority of people do not believe in God – while different
polling methods yield different results, all of them agree in that
it's a significant majority. <A HREF="#noteJapan">[7]</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet, clearly, and with the
exception of cases of severe mental illness, Japanese adults grasp
the meaning of moral terms, can and do use them competently, etc.</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Also, clearly, they're not making
claims about commands or prohibitions issued by God, or anything of
the sort. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, given the previous
considerations, we can tell that there is no <I>semantic</I>
connection of the sort I described: in other words, it is not the
case that 'X is immoral' means 'God forbids X", or anything of
the sort. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second, and going to the general
case of any creator and/or intelligent entity G, similar
considerations apply: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Someone might suggest that there
is some property P such that 'X is immoral' means 'An entity with
property P bans X'. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But that is not the case, since P
clearly would not be a property any human being or less intelligent
being has, and there are groups that do not have beliefs about
superhuman entities, but nonetheless understand moral words, make
claims that some behaviors are immoral, and so on. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As before, someone might object
that some semantic identities aren't transparent, but again, f
someone is actually making a claim that there is a being issuing a
command and forbidding some behavior, it seems that they would
realize that that's what they're saying. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As for other moral judgments,
such as 'X is morally obligatory', 'X is morally good', etc., similar
cases can be made, so I will not repeat the arguments, but will
provide more examples: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First, there are many theists,
who believe that Yahweh had or has a moral obligation to honor his
covenant with the ancient Hebrews. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It is apparent that their belief
that Yahweh has a moral obligation to honor his covenant with the
ancient Hebrews is not a belief that someone commanded Yahweh to
honor his covenant with the ancient Hebrews. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second, there are also theist
philosophers who say that God has moral obligations; for instance: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>Richard
Swinburne:</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> <A HREF="#noteSwinburne"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[8]</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">God has a moral obligation to
make himself known</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Swinburne is most certainly not
saying that God commanded God to make himself known, or that some
other being commanded God to make himself known. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Ontology and semantics"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6)
Ontology and semantics: a crucial connection </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
I explained </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Moral ontology"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">earlier</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
Craig is concerned with moral ontology, not with moral semantics. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However, I
will describe a crucial connection between ontology and semantics,
and explain how that affects Craig's metaethical argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Color Ontology once again"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.1)
Color ontology, part II </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Color"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Earlier</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
I made some points on color ontology, as an analogy to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Moral ontology a few more"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
ontology</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">;
in this subsection and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Moral ontology once again"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
next one</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
I will use that analogy again, so illustrate a few more issues that
are relevant to understand what it is that the theist defender of the
metaethical argument would need to show, and generally what the
burden on each side is. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First, it
seems the property 'greenness' is a property of some objects and/or
light that our color vision perceives or tracks; in any event, it's a
property tracked by our visual sense. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second,
when an ontological account is given, the proposed account actually
<I>makes a list of categories of objects </I>that have that property.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We try to
make the complete list, such that any object that has the property
'greenness' is in at least one such category. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, an object can be green because it, say, under certain
conditions it reflects light in some wavelength l1, or a combination
of wavelengths l2 and l3 that our color vision perceives very
similarly. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">All the
wavelengths posited in the theory have to match our color vision –
i.e., a normal human color vision is the guidance. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Third,
there is no one single account: if we find a more general description
of the universe than present-day physics, we could come up with a
description in those terms, and that too would be correct, if the
description in terms of wavelengths is. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Fourth,
even if the account in terms of wavelengths I suggested above is
completely wrong, there is still <I>some </I>property that our color
vision tracks, and which under normal conditions elicits our judgment
'green', and <I>that property </I>is the property 'greenness'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
point is that as long as there is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">property
that our color sense is tracking – whatever that property is -,
and which elicits our judgments 'green' under normal conditions, that
appears to be in general </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">sufficient
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">for
having objective color green (in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Objectiveness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
sense of 'objective' that is relevant in the context of the
metaethical argument</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">),
and </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">unless
the semantics of the word "green" prevented that, for some
specific property. </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">For
instance, if 'green', meant something like 'that which evokes a
certain feeling in normal humans, and which was created by Odin',
then even if our visual system is tracking a property, and even if
the perception of it is what normally elicits our judgment 'green',
that property wouldn't be greenness, because Odin does not exist, so
we would have an error theory of greenness – in other words,
nothing would be green; obviously, there is no Odin requirement in
the word 'green'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's
important to note that issues such as <I>how </I>our visual system
came to be, its inner workings, why it tracks the property that it
tracks, but not another one, etc., do not matter with regard to
whether there is objective color, and of course there is no need for
a Supreme Green Commander, as long as the <I>semantics </I>of the
word 'green' do not require it – which, of course, they do not.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now, let's
take a loot at moral properties: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Moral ontology once again"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>6.2)
Moral ontology, part II</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A HREF="#Color Ontology once again"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">As
in the case of color</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
let's say - which Craig accepts - that we have a sense that tracks
certain properties, and when we perceive them (not necessarily in
person, but considering hypothetical scenarios, etc.), that
perception (or understanding, if you like) elicits corresponding
judgments like 'morally good', 'immoral', 'morally obligatory', and
so on. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Again, it
seems, as in the case of color, that as long as the system is
species-wide, and it tracks some properties, then we would have
objective goodness, objective immorality, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other word, in that case, morality is objective </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Objectiveness"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
the sense of 'objective' in the sense that is relevant in the context
of this metaethical argument</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
regardless of things such as how our moral sense came to be, and what
the properties that our moral sense is tracking actually are, except
for </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><B>semantic</B></I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">constraints:
For instance, if our moral sense is tracking some property, and when
we perceive such property it normally elicits our judgment 'morally
obligatory', but when we say 'X is morally obligatory' we mean
something like 'Thor commands X', that would give us a moral error
theory (of course, 'X is morally obligatory" does not mean 'Thor
commands X", </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Moral Semantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">or
'God commands X', for that matter</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">).
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, what
would those properties be? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Actually,
we already have a language for them – precisely, moral language
-, so we can simply say those are the property of moral goodness,
moral wrongness, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But if one
wants to say something more about them, then one might suggest that
they may be complicated mental properties, involving attitudes,
intentions, dispositions, etc., and in the case of actions that are
good, bad, etc., those carrying out the actions would have such
mental properties. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
and regardless of whether that is the case, the crucial point is that
there is no need for me or any non-theist to come up with a theory
about them: whatever the properties that our moral sense is tracking
are, <I>those</I> are the moral properties<I>, </I>as long as there
is no <I><B>semantic</B></I> barrier to that. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In other
words, as long as the meaning of moral terms does not involve
ontological claims that the properties that our moral sense tracks do
not match, then there are moral properties, regardless of what they
might be – well, regardless of what their description in
non-moral terms would be; the properties are actually moral goodness,
moral wrongness, etc. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
the previous conditions are enough, unless there is some </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">semantic</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">restriction
that gets in the way. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
arguing for such a restriction requires arguing moral </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">semantics</SPAN></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and the burden to show that that there is a restriction that affects
only non-theism is on the theist defender of the metaethical
argument. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In other
words, the theist arguer would have to show that if theism is not
true, then the properties that our moral sense is tracking –
regardless of what they actually are -, do not meet the ontological
commitments entailed by moral language, but if theism is true, then
the properties that our moral sense is tracking do meet such
commitments. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That's a
burden that theist defenders of metaethical arguments –
including Craig – come nowhere near meeting. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Burden
aside, a non-theist may of course choose to go on the offensive and
argue that some or all the potential semantic objections fail. In
particular, earlier I showed that moral judgments </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Moral Semantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">do
not involve claims about a commander of any kind, or a creator, etc.</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Moral objectivism under nontheism"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7) Moral
objectivism and non-theism </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Based on
all the reasons explained in previous sections, we can tell that a
non-theist moral objectivist may simply posit a species-specific
moral sense – just as there is color vision, for instance -,
and claim that moral properties are whatever properties that moral
sense tracks, and which our moral language refers to. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">She
may just claim that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#objectiveconditions"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
conditions I mentioned</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">earlier
are met, and that is it. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
as I </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Moral ontology once again"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">explained
earlier</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
ontological challenges would fail, in absence of a successful
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">semantic
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">challenge.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But there
are other potential challenges, so let's take a quick look at the
main alternatives: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Semantic challenges"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.1)
Semantic challenges</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Semantic
challenges that the non-theist objectivist might face can be divided
in two main groups: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>a)
Semantic challenges to moral objectivism: </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Those
challenges do not concern us here, since a theist can't challenge use
them to support their metaethical case. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>b)
Semantic challenges to the compatibility of moral objectivism with
non-theism which do not challenge the possibility of moral
objectivism under theism. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">These are
the kinds of semantic challenges that the theist defender of a
metaethical argument might want to raise. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
as I explained above, moral judgments </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal"><A HREF="#Moral Semantics">do
not involve claims about a commander of any </A><A HREF="#Moral Semantics">kind,
or a creator, etc.</A></SPAN></FONT> <FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">so
that type of challenges, at least, is unsuccessful. </SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Given that,
it's hard to see which challenges the theist still has at his
disposal, but in any event, the burden would be on the theist
claimant. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Empirical challenge"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.2)
Empirical challenges </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Here, too,
we may distinguish between two main types of challenges: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>a)
Empirical challenges to moral objectivism: </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Those
challenges do not concern us here, since a theist can't use them to
support his metaethical case. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>b)
Empirical challenges to the compatibility of moral objectivism with
non-theism which do not challenge the possibility of moral
objectivism under theism. </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Once again,
these are the kinds of empirical challenges that a theist might want
to raise, but it seems clear that the range of challenges is very
limited, and at most they would be challenges for some types of
non-theism; in any case, the burden of arguing for them is on the
theist. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A
possibility for the theist would be to argue that if theism were not
true, then either humans wouldn't have a species-wide sense but one
that varies from person to person, or that they would have some kind
of species-wide sense, but it would be very different from what it
is, so it wouldn't track the properties that it actually tracks, but
some other properties. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
that kind of argument would be a heavy burden on the theist; I
seriously doubt they can meet that, but in any case, here is enough
to point out that they have not. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Arguments from Authority"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>7.3)
Arguments from authority</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Another
potential theistic tactic would be to claim that a good number of
non-theist philosophers deny that there is objective morality. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of course,
that tactic goes nowhere: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
there are also plenty of non-theist philosophers who do not deny that
there is objective morality, including plenty who affirm that there
is. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Second,
many of those who deny that there is objective morality make
arguments to the conclusion that objective morality is actually
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>impossible –
</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">rather
than possible only on theism -, so theists can't consistently use
those arguments in their favor. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Third, even
theist philosophers are divided on whether premise one is true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Fourth,
in any case, </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>that
wouldn't matter. </I></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">A
non-theist objectivist who understands the matters at hand realizes
that she can just </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Moral objectivism under nontheism"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">posit
a human universal moral sense and moral properties tracked by it</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
and has </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Moral ontology once again"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">no
extra burden</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">;
why should she care about arguments from authority? </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Having
surveyed the main potential objections and arguments available to the
theist, let's now assess Craig's argument in detail. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Competent authority"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>8) Moral
duties, moral prohibitions, competent authorities, and Divine Command
Theories (DCT)</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Even
though Craig is concerned with moral ontology rather than moral
semantics, Craig contends that, on atheism, there are no moral
obligations of prohibitions because there is no competent authority
to issue moral commands or prohibitions: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>William
Lane Craig: </B></FONT><A HREF="#notecraigharris"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[4]</SPAN></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Moral obligations or prohibitions
arise in response to imperatives from a competent authority. For
example, if a policeman tells you to pull over, then because of his
authority, who he is, you are legally obligated to pull over. But if
some random stranger tells you to pull over, you’re not legally
obligated to do so. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now,
in the absence of God, what authority is there to issue moral
commands or prohibitions? There is none on atheism, and therefore
there are no moral imperatives for us to obey. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Yet,
Craig does not provide any good reasons at all to even suspect that
having an obligation would require having an authority issuing
commands.</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Note
that the burden is on him. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's
not up to the non-theist to show that that is not the case, and that
obligations do not require someone issuing commands. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now,
the fact is that there is no <I>semantic </I>requirement. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
other words, <A HREF="#Moral Semantics">the meaning of the term
'moral obligation' is not such that it implies that someone is giving
commands. </A></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now,
Craig's argument is an ontological one, not a semantic one.</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
as I explained <A HREF="#Moral ontology once again">earlier</A>, the
non-theist objectivist is not challenged in the least by an
ontological challenge in absence of a successful semantic challenge. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Why
should we even <I>suspect</I> that without such a competent authority
issuing commands, moral obligations would not exist? </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Granted,
someone might posit that such a being – that we might call a
'Supreme Commander' - exists, and then claim that that would somehow
provide an adequate 'ontological foundation' for morality. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I
will later show that <A HREF="#Going the extra mile">that is not
true</A>, but leaving that aside for the moment, that suggestion
would make </FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>no progress
whatsoever</I></FONT> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">towards
meeting the theist's burden in the context of this metaethical
argument, since it would not present any challenges to the
possibility of moral objectivism </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>without
</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">a
Supreme Commander. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Furthermore,
the person making such a suggestion would have the burden of showing
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>how</I></FONT>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">such
a Supreme Commander would provide an adequate 'ontological
foundation' for moral obligations, since he would be the one making
the claim in an attempt to support the <A HREF="#Premise 1">first
premise</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
this metaethical argument. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">But
even if he managed to show that the Supreme Commander, if he existed,
would provide the adequate 'ontological foundation', for moral
obligations – which is <A HREF="#Going the extra mile">false</A>,
but leaving that aside for now -, that alone in no way would imply
that such a being is </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>required</I></FONT>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">for
moral obligation, so even that would not provide support for the
<A HREF="#Premise 1">first premise</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
this metaethical argument. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Finally, Craig's police officer
analogy does not work, either: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">First,
it's plausibly not meant to suggest a </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>semantic
</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">requirement,
since Craig's argument is an ontological one. <BR>Still, some of
Craig's quotations of Richard Taylor<A HREF="#noteindispensability">[5]</A></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">suggest
that Craig might be raising a semantic challenge after all. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It's
not entirely clear, but in any case, I will simply point out that if
the police officer analogy is an attempt to introduce a semantic
challenge, suggesting that moral obligations entail a Supreme
Commander by the meaning of the words, then the challenge fails, for
the reasons I <A HREF="#Moral Semantics">explained earlier</A>. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Second, if it's not meant to
suggest any semantic requirement, then Craig provides no good reason
to suspect that morality and legality are indeed analogous in the
case under consideration. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, why should we suspect that
they are? </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, in brief, Craig's argument
about a "competent authority" provides no good reason to
even suspect that a lack of a Supreme Commander would be in any way a
problem – let alone that any Divine Command Theory might be
true. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="Going the extra mile"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>9) The
failure of Divine Command Theories</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First, a
clarification is in order: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">There are
several theories, about moral ontology and/or moral semantics, that
may be called 'Divine Command Theory'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
a </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Moral Semantics"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">previous
section,</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I've
shown that semantic DCT – which posit that 'Agent A has a moral
obligation to do X' means 'God commands agent A to do X', or
something along those lines – are not true. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
this section, I will show that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">ontological</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">DCT
are not true.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#noteDCT1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[9]
</FONT></A>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, I will show that theories that claim that moral
obligations/duties are constituted by the commands of God –
which is what Craig claims in his debate with Harris <A HREF="#notecraigharris">[4]</A>–
are not true, regardless of whether they also are semantic DCT. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's not
entirely clear what 'constituted' means in this context, since moral
obligations aren't some entity that may have a certain composition,
and the claim is not one of semantic equivalence, either. Still, I
will let that pass and in any case present an objection that succeeds
in spite of the obscurity of the claim, since it works under any
plausibly understanding of the word 'constituted'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now, before
I go any further, I will point out that there is no burden on the
non-theist to show that DCT are not true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Rather, if
a theist claims that a DCT is true, it's his burden to show that it
is. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
particular, this section 9) is not at all required to properly
conclude that Craig's metaethical argument provides no support for
theism, since Craig does not provide any good reasons to even suspect
that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Premise 1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
first premise</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">might
be true, for the reasons explained in the rest of the sections. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, even if
we ignore the arguments I will make in this section, the case against
Craig's metaethical argument succeeds. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Still,
since Craig posits a DCT, and since refuting DCT also has interesting
implications for other theistic metaethical arguments and hypotheses,
I now proceed to do so: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="Metaphysical possibility"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B><FONT COLOR="#0000ff">9.1)
Metaphysical possibilities</FONT> </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Before I
address the heart of this matter, I will address a specific issue
about metaphysical possibility, in order to preempt certain potential
objections. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
consider the following hypothetical dialogue: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Alice</B>:
Water is H<SUB>2</SUB>O. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Tom</B>:
I don't believe it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I believe
that that's a scientific conspiracy. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Water is
not H<SUB>2</SUB>O, but Hg<SUB>2</SUB>Po. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Alice</B>:
What? Hg<SUB>2</SUB>Po? That's absurd!</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Tom</B>:
That's easy to say, but do you have any evidence? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">And don't
tell me to look at papers or textbooks. They're all in on the
conspiracy. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If you want
to persuade me that water is not Hg<SUB>2</SUB>Po, then show me that
it is not, and then maybe you can try to convince me that it's H<SUB>2</SUB>O.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Alice</B>:
Hmm...let's see: Do you know what the composition of sulfuric acid
is? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Tom</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Yes, that one is real. Sulfuric acid is H</SPAN><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">SO</SPAN><SUB><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">4.</SPAN></SUB></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Alice</B>:
Good. Let's see: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If water
were Hg<SUB>2</SUB>Po, then the molecule of water would be heavier
than the molecule of sulfuric acid. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Maybe we
can use that to test the theory. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Bob: </B>I'm
sorry, Alice, but that's impossible. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I agree
with you, of course, that water is H<SUB>2</SUB>O. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
given that water is H<SUB>2</SUB>O, it's metaphysically impossible
for water to be Hg<SUB>2</SUB>Po, so your conditional has a
metaphysically impossible antecedent. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, I'm
afraid that you're constructing a metaphysically impossible scenario.
</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Tom</B>:
Well, water isn't H<SUB>2</SUB>O, but if it were, then Alice would
indeed be constructing a metaphysically impossible scenario. So,
Alice, your suggestion fails. Try again. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Alice</B>:
What are you two even talking about? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I'm not
suggesting that Alice's test is a good one, or that entertaining
Tom's absurdities is a good idea, either, but my point here is that
Alice's claim 'If water were Hg<SUB>2</SUB>Po, then the molecule of
water would be heavier than the molecule of sulfuric acid' is clearly
a <I>true </I>claim.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
objections raised by Bob and Tom are very confused. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
it is metaphysically impossible for water to be anything but H</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SUB><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">2</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SUB></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">O</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notemetaphysical"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[10]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
nothing to do with the truth value of Alice's conditional. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; line-height: 150%">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Incidentally,
as a side note, if someone is a theist and shares Bob's confusion, he
might object to Craig's metaethical argument on the grounds that the
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Premise 1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">first
premise</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
a metaphysically impossible antecedent, since theists usually hold
that 'God does not exist' is metaphysically impossible. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Moral obligations of God"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>9.2)
The moral obligations</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>of
a personal creator</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">If there is
no personal creator of all other personal beings, then God does not
exist. Then, it is not the case that our moral obligations are
constituted by God's commands, and so DCT are not true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, let's
assume in the rest of this subsection, and for the sake of the
argument, that there is a personal being, creator of all other
personal beings. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's name
that being 'Alex'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In other
words, by 'Alex' I mean 'The personal being who created all other
personal beings.'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I don't
mean anything else by 'Alex'. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, let's
see that Alex actually has moral obligations.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">To
show that, my strategy is in a sense similar to Craig's strategy in
support of the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#premise 2"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">second
premise</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
which appeals to people's intuitive assessment that, say, the
Holocaust was morally wrong, that torturing a child just for fun is
immoral, and so on. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, Alex is
a person who created all other personal beings. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">My claim –
which I would ask readers to please assess by their own sense of
right and wrong – is the following: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Alex1"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>P1</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
If Alex were to create other personal beings for the specific,
deliberate and exclusive purpose of torturing those beings for all
eternity, then Alex would be acting immorally. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">It
seems to me that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>P1
</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
obviously true.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I'm not
even talking about eternal punishment in Hell – I maintain that
that would also be immoral, but that's a matter for another article. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
the case under consideration in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>P1</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
there is no punishment for any sin; we're talking about a person
creating personal beings with the specific, deliberate and exclusive
purpose of torturing them for all eternity. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, if Alex
created other personal beings for the specific, deliberate and
exclusive purpose of torturing those beings for all eternity, then
Alex would be acting immorally. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might object that if Alex is God, then the antecedent of the
conditional </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Alex1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">P1</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><U>
</U></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
metaphysically impossible. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
that would be a very confused objection, as explained </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Metaphysical possibility"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
the previous subsection.</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Alternatively,
they might claim that my argument is circular, because I'm somehow
assuming that there can be objective morality without God. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
that would be confused as well: I'm not </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">assuming
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
there can be objective morality without God. In fact, I am: </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">a)
Assuming – or rather, granting – that there </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">objective
morality. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">b) Further
assuming that Alex exists. In other words, I'm further assuming that
the personal creator of all other personal beings exist. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">c) I'm not
making further assumptions about Alex; in particular, I'm neither
assuming that Alex is God, nor that he or she is not God. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">d)
I'm using my sense of right and wrong to </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">conclude</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Alex1"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>P1</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true – and asking readers to do as well. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, I'm </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">concluding,
</SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">by
means of my sense of right and wrong and under some assumptions that
are </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">entailed
by theism, </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">that
if Alex were to create other personal beings for the specific,
deliberate and exclusive purpose of torturing those beings for all
eternity, then Alex would be acting immorally. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, this
objection would fail as well. There is no improper assumption or
circularity on my part. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Now,
I will appeal to the reader's grasp of moral terms, and claim that –
just by the meaning of the words – </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Alex1"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>P1</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><U>
</U></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">entails:
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Alex obligation"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>P2</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">:
Alex has a moral obligation not to create other personal beings for
the specific, deliberate and exclusive purpose of torturing those
beings for all eternity. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Readers
will use their own grasp of the terms to make their own assessment,
of course, but I contend that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>P2
</B></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">follows
from </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Alex1"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><U><B>P1</B></U></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">just
as 'Barack Obama is not a bachelor' follows from 'Barack Obama is
married'. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">So,
Alex </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">has
a moral obligation. </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">But
that moral obligation is </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
constituted by one of Alex's commands – </SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">hopefully,
that is clear. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In other
words, Alex's moral obligation not to create other personal beings
for the specific, deliberate and exclusive purpose of torturing those
beings for all eternity, is not constituted by Alex's 'command to
Alex' not to create other personal beings for the specific,
deliberate and exclusive purpose of torturing those beings for all
eternity: there is no command from Alex to Alex. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Hence, it
is not true that moral obligations are constituted by Alex's
commands. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Now, if God
exists, then God and Alex are the same person, since God is the
creator of all other personal beings, and Alex is the creator of all
other personal beings. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Therefore,
it is not true that moral obligations are constituted by God's
commands. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Therefore,
Divine Command Theories are not true. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Are humans just animals"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>10) Are
humans "just" animals? </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>William
Lane Craig: </B></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notecraigharris"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[4]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">On
the naturalistic view, human beings are just animals, and animals
have no moral obligation to one another. When a lion kills a zebra,
it kills the zebra, but it doesn’t </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><EM><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">murder</FONT></FONT></EM><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">the
zebra. When a great white shark forcibly copulates with a female, it
forcibly copulates with her but it doesn’t </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><EM><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">rape</FONT></FONT></EM><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">her–for
none of these actions is forbidden or obligatory. There is no moral
dimension to these actions. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First, a
brief reply: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">When
a lioness kills a zebra, she doesn't fly. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">And
when a zebra escapes from a lioness, he doesn't fly, either.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Zebras,
lionesses, gazelles, rats, cats – none of them flies. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So,
mammals do not fly. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On
a biologist's view, bats are just mammals. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But
mammals do not fly, and many bats do. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">That
refutes biologists' claim that bats are just mammals...</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Parodies
aside, and leaving also aside Craig's contemptuous "just",
the fact that some animals are not moral agents is no good reason to
believe that no animals are moral agents. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of
course, there are obvious </FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>psychological</I></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">differences
between different species, and in particular, between humans and
great whites, or any other species for that matter. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notechimps"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[11]</FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">What
actually matters, when it comes to the question of whether a being is
a </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral agent"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
agent</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
is not the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>ontology
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
the agent's mind, but the </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><I>psychology
</I></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">of
her mind. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The
ontology could only have an indirect effect, to the extent to which
it conditions the psychology. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">I think
that, after reflexion, that should be clear, but still, in case
someone is not persuaded, let's consider the following scenario: </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">First,
let's assume theism for the moment, and let's suppose that God
creates a universe in which there are no souls. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Instead, he
creates some sort of panpsychist universe, where there are some
basic, essential particles with some sort of basic phenomenal
consciousness, but no intelligence, no will, no pain, essentially
much simpler than a mosquito's mind – they shouldn't even be
properly called 'minds', I think. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Then, in
that universe, through theistic evolution, complex beings arise. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">They do not
have souls, but they do have minds, with the full range of emotions,
knowledge, etc., of the animals we're familiar with. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In fact,
one of the species God creates has a psychological makeup similar to
that of humans, and is capable of making moral assessments, just like
we can. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Let's
suppose that some of those beings engages in torturing other such
beings for fun. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Would they
not be acting immorally? </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">It's pretty
obvious that they would be, even though their minds is made up of the
same kind of basic stuff that the rest of the minds of the other
animals in that universe – including all of those without a
moral sense -, and even made up of the same kind of basic stuff as
tables, chairs, and the like. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Of course,
the tables, etc., do not have table-minds, etc: the basic particles
that make them up do have the most basic phenomenal consciousness,
but they're not combined in a way that makes up any less basic
consciousness. They're only connected externally, so to speak. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">So, chairs,
tables, etc., are not moral beings – obviously -, and neither
are mosquitoes or similar entities, but on the other hand, entities
with human-like minds are moral beings, just as humans are, and
regardless of what their minds are made of. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We may also
consider an alternative scenario, just like the above but in which
there is no phenomenal consciousness in the basic particles –
i.e., no panpsychism -, and minds emerge when some kind of
combinations of particles happen – God just made the particles
with the properties that when they combine in a certain manner, they
combination acquires awareness. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
conclusion is the same: beings with human-like minds are </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral agent"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
agents</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
regardless of the ontology of the mind. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">So,
as I pointed out, it's not the ontology of a mind what matters when
it comes to the question of whether a being is a </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral agent"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
agent</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
but its psychology – or, to put it simpler, what matters is
what kind of mind it is, not what kind of stuff the mind is made of. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Someone
might insist that the scenarios in which there are people without
souls are metaphysically impossible, or something along those lines.
That would have to be argued for, but even then, that would be </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I>beside
the point</I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
scenarios still show that there is no </SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">semantic</SPAN></I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">requirement
of souls, or anything like that. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
other words, the meaning of moral terms is </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">not
</SPAN></I></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">such
that if we say, 'Agent A acted immorally', we're implying that A has
a soul, or in any case that the mind of agent A is made up of some
kind of basic substance that is different from the kind of basic
substances that chairs, tables, and mosquitoes are made of. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">A theist
might object to that point and claim that the meaning entails that,
but the meaning is non-transparent, so competent users of moral terms
will not notice it. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
for that matter, someone can say that the meaning of moral terms
entail that there aren't souls, but that that's non-transparent. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">The point
here is that there is nothing as far as one can tell that would even
suggest that our moral language is such that souls are a requirement
for moral agency, or that some ontological difference between the
kind of basic stuff that chairs, mosquitoes, lions, and people are
made of, is required for moral agency to exist. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Given
that there is no semantic requirement for souls or any other such
entity, then it seems that what would be left to the theist here
would be an empirical challenge: namely, they might argue that if
theism is not true, or at least that if naturalism </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notenaturalism"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[12]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">is
true, then the kind of mind that we have would not have developed. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
that would have to be argued for. <BR>Moreover, if such an empirical
challenge were successful, then the metaethical argument would play
no role anymore – the conclusion would be obtained right away
from the empirical case. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">On the
other hand, if such an empirical challenge is unsuccessful, then
obviously it provides no support for the metaethical argument. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Herd Morality"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>11) The
so-called "herd morality"</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In line with his "just
animals" argument, Craig actually considers the possibility of a
moral sense resulting from the evolutionary process, and makes
disparaging remarks about it, like calling that a “herd
morality”,</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">But let's address his arguments,
and see what the objection actually amounts to: </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notemetaonline"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[5]</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
a result of socio-biological pressures, there has evolved among homo
sapiens a sort of "herd morality" which functions well in
the perpetuation of our species in the struggle for survival. But
there does not seem to be anything about homo sapiens that makes this
morality objectively true. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>William
Lane Craig:</B></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notemetaonline"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[5]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>If
there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality
evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been
removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are
just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively
recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a
hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish
individually and collectively in a relatively short time. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>"By-products
of nature"?</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>One
wonders what the main products would be...but in any case, let's
begin with a quick reply: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">1) As a
result of environmental pressures, there has evolved among Homo
Sapiens a sort of “human color vision”, which functions
well in the perpetuation of our species in the struggle for survival.
But there does not seem to be anything among Homo Sapiens that makes
our color statements objectively true...</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">2)
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">If
there is no God, then any ground for regarding the statements about
colors based on the color vision that evolved among Homo Sapiens as
objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what's so
special about human beings? </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Parodies
aside, the fact is that strong rhetoric and displays of contempt do
not provide any support for </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#Premise 1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">premise
one </FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>of
the metaethical argument. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
fact is that the claims from Craig I quoted above completely fail to
even present any </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#Moral objectivism under nontheism"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">relevant
objection</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Again,
however our moral sense came to be what it is, is not relevant to the
matter at hand. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
long as we have it and it tracks some properties, then those
properties are moral properties, </FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#Moral ontology once again"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">in
absence of a successful semantic challenge.</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000">
</FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">And
also, again, a theist could challenge that such a sense would develop
under non-theism, or at least under </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notenaturalism"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">naturalism</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">,
but that burden would be on him. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Materialism"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>12)
Materialism</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notematerialism"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[13]</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>According
to Craig, naturalists are usually physicalists or materialists, and
he uses that to try to defend his claim that in that case, there is
no objective morality. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Before
I go on, I will point out that hundreds of millions of people do not
believe in God, but are not materialists, physicalists, or
naturalists (e.g., most Buddhists). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
aside, Craig claims that without a soul, humans are not qualitatively
different from other species, and that prevents moral objectivism. I
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Are humans just animals"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">already
explaned</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"> </FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">why
the claims about "just animals", and the like, fail, so
let's assess his other argument in this context – namely, the
one about determinism: </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>William
Lane Craig: </B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notemetaonline"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[5]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Secondly,
if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think
and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic
make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do
something. But without freedom, none of our choices is morally
significant. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>While
is true that freedom seems to be required for moral responsibility,
it's not true that determinism is a problem for freedom. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">I
will address that in </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#freedom"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">the
following section</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but in this one, I will argue that even assuming that libertarian
free will is coherent and actually is a correct understanding of
freedom, there is no good reason to think that that would be a
problem for the non-theist. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
fact, there is nothing in non-theism or even in materialism that
entails determinism, and some interpretations of quantum mechanics
are non-deterministic. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might suggest that that quantum non-determinism does not provide the
adequate kind of non-determinism to allow libertarian freedom. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
reality, non-determinism might hinder but never help freedom, and
libertarian 'freedom' </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#freedom"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">is
no freedom at all</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
but leaving that aside and assuming otherwise, there is no good
reason to think that quantum mechanics prevents brains from having
whatever kind of freedom souls are supposed to have. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
see this, let's say that there are particles, not souls, and the
universe is indeterministic. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
the fact remains that humans have minds. We can love, believe, feel,
and so on. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
the conclusion is that particles can interact with each other in ways
that result in minds. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Hence,
it remains the case that not all the properties of particles are
those described by present-day physics, since present-day physics
says nothing about either forming minds or interacting with them. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
addition to that, it remains the case that not all the properties of
particles that are causally effective are described by present-day
physics – particles have the property of being capable of
forming minds, for instance. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
any arguments and/or evidence that we – by assumption –
have in support of libertarian freedom would remain, since modern
physics says nothing about minds, or what kind of freedom they may or
may not have. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might claim that only non-mental properties of particles, or of
combinations of particles, would be causally effective in that
scenario. But that would have to be argued for. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Else,
why should we suspect that causal efficacy is limited to non-mental
properties – some described by present-day physics, some not –
of particles and of certain configurations of particles, against the
obvious evidence that we can cause events by, say, making choices? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Whoever
claims that brains made of particles and no souls would somehow
prevent freedom would have to make their case, rather than just
claiming so. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>As
it stands, and for the aforementioned reasons, there appears to be no
good reason to suspect that that would be the case. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Also,
the fact that quantum mechanics could be used to make probabilistic
assessments about human behavior given sufficient information and
computing power would not be a problem, either: </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
that matter, we can make probabilistic assessments about human
behavior all the time, for instance using economic models,
psychological profiles, etc., or even intuitive assessments in daily
life, and that does not suggest in any way that we have no freedom –
even under the false assumption that freedom is libertarian freedom. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="freedom"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>13)
Freedom, libertarian</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>freedom,
and determinism</B></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">As
I explained in the previous section, Craig's arguments – or
similar ones – fail to show that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#EN"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">EN</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
materialism, or physicalism entail determinism and/or a lack of
freedom, even assuming that a libertarian free will hypothesis is a
correct account of human freedom. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
this section I will show that libertarian free will is not freedom,
and should more properly be called 'random will'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; background: transparent; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
consider the following scenario:</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alice
has been a good police officer for ten years.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>She's
kind, committed her job, good to her children, and so on.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
one morning, Alice goes to work as usual. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>The
police get a call about a domestic disturbance, and Alice and another
officer are sent to the address they're given.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>When
they arrive there, they encounter Harry, a thirteen-year old kid high
on drugs, acting completely irrationally. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>He
tells Alice: 'You're a police officer, so you're evil. Why don't you
shoot me?'</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alice
has no reason at all to shoot Harry. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>He
poses no threat to her, and can be easily arrested if needed. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
it's clear that she has the <I>power </I>to shoot him, and
is <I>free</I> to choose whether to shoot him. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>All
she'd have to do is pull her gun, point it at Harry, and shoot. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>No
one would see that coming, so no one could stop her if she did that –
no human, anyway; the point is that she wouldn't be stopped. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
Alice – of course – feels no inclination whatsoever to
shoot Harry, does not shoot him, and follows procedure.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">The
point is that saying that Alice </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>can
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">shoot Harry, that she
has the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>power </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">to
shoot him, that she is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>free</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
to choose whether to shoot him, etc., means that she would shoot him
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>if she chose to do so,
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">that she's not being
coerced, etc.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">It
does </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>not at all </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">mean
that, even given Alice's mental state at the time she chose to
follow procedure, and even given </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>all</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
the conditions of the world at that time and previous times –
including Alice's goals, beliefs, character, etc. -, it was still
possible that Alice would shoot Harry.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
the contrary, if, given all those previous states, it was possible
that Alice shot Harry, then it seems that there is a possible world W
with the exact same past as ours prior to Alice's decision to follow
procedure, at which Alice shot Harry instead. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">But
that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>is not an
exercise of freedom, in the usual sense of the words. Rather, it's an
unfortunate event that happens to Alice. </I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
see this, let's consider Alice's mental processes leading to her
'decision' to shoot Alice – say, decision D. Alice never
considered shooting her, and had no desire, intention, etc., before
decision D happened.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
at some time, earlier states of the world, including her earlier
mental processes did not determine her later mental processes. There
is an event "Alice decides to shoot Harry" that happens
irrespective of any previous states of Alice's mind, and no matter
how much Alice would loath being a murderer.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>All
of Alice's previous reasoning, desires, behavior, intentions, etc.,
are incapable to stop 'decision' D from happening. But how's
that Alice's decision?</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">It
seems D is not a decision Alice made, but rather, it's something that
happened </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>to </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Alice.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It's
not something Alice could have anticipated, or prevented: at some
point her mental processes changed from normal to 'shoot Harry',
without forewarning, and without any cause in previous mental
processes.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Someone
might claim that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>necessarily</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">,
there is always </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>some </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">hidden
reason to shoot people, or to do </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>anything </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">one
can do, but that would have to be argued for, and even then, that
would not change the fact that, in that case, Alice could not have
prevented his mental processes from changing at some point from
normal to 'shoot Harry', no matter what she did before – and
that change could not be reasonably said to be </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>her </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">decision,
since she had never considered that before, and the change took her
by surprise.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Those
considerations show that that kind of thing should not be called
'freedom', but more like 'an unfortunate kind of randomness'. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
does not mean that human non-determinism isn't true. But that is
surely not required for freedom, and in fact, it might undermine it,
as the previous scenario shows. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I>Perhaps</I>,
there are situations after which, after assessing the pros and cons,
a human is undecided between A or ¬A; if so, maybe there is a
truly random outcome generator for such cases (which might involve
also several mutually exclusive options: A1, A2, A3,...)</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
if that is the case, that is not required for free will: a random
generator that delivers 'decisions' in cases in which the mind
remains undecided clearly does not result in more freedom than a mind
that actually makes decisions. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">So,
if there is such indeterminism, as long as the indeterministic events
happen when a person is undecided (based on her previous feelings,
desires, reasoning, etc., she is undecided and does not cause any
outcome), </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>maybe </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">that
randomness is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>compatible</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
with free will, but that's all. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">On
the other hand, if there is an indeterministic feature of human
behavior that happens to be like Bob's example above – i.e., if
it happens </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>against </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">everything
that the person stood for, his previous considerations, etc. -, then,
and as the previous example shows, that kind of indeterminism –
at least, when it happens – would actually </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>preclude </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">free
will; rather, the 'decision' would be an unfortunately random will.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">There
is another way to see this, taking into account that even under
the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>exact </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">same
preexisting conditions – including, of course, the previous
mental states of the libertarian-free agent. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
let's consider the following scenario (relativizing time as
required):</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Alice
is a libertarian-free human, and at t(s), the state of worlds W and
W' is exactly the same – that includes, of course, Alice's
mental processes.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Later,
Alice libertarian-freely chooses A at W, and B at W', even though the
states of the worlds prior to Alice's decision were the same (A is
different from B). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
other words, W and W' are exactly the same until Alice's mental
processes diverge.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
let p be a Planck time, and n a non-negative integer, starting with
0.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let's
consider times t(s)+n*p, and the states of W and W', W(n) and W'(n)
respectively.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Let
n(l) be the last n such that W(n) = W'(n).</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">Since
the 'decision' was made even given the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>exact </I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">same
prior conditions, it seems that the 'decision' happened between
t(s)+n(l)*p, and t(s)+(n(l)+1)*p = t(s)+n(l)*p+p, in other words, the
'decision' was made </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>in
not more than a Planck time.</I></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That's
way too fast for any human conscious decision, though. So, it becomes
clearer that the first indeterministic event E that distinguishes
between W and W' is same random alteration of Alice's mental
processes. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might suggest that, previous processes in her mind made E in
probable, but weren't enough to bring it about, something still
altered her mind randomly; let's assume that that would be a coherent
interpretation of probability (else, this objection fails already). </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Even
then, the fact would remain that her mind was altered without a
cause, and with nothing she could do earlier to stop it; moreover, in
some cases, the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">improbable
</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'decision'
might happen. And in those cases in which the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">improbable</SPAN></I></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">'decision'
happens – i.e., the decision that her previous mental processes
made improbable – </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">we're
back with something like the unfortunate case of </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#freedom"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">the
libertarian-free police officer.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Someone
might still object that, if such a random change in her mind
happened, she still could have changed her mind, and refrained from
carrying out the decision – in the case of the </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#freedom"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">first
example</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
the shooting. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
problem is, though, that if you can have such a random event </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">between
t(s)+n(l)*p, and t(s)+(n(l)+1)*p, it seems you can have another one
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">at
every single Planck time that follows, </SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">until
the "decision" that was completely against everything the
person previously stood for, actually happens. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
let's suppose someone introduces some fuzziness in some way –
which they would have to explain, of course; else, the previous
reasoning stands. Even then, the fact would remain that the agent
would have a random component – a change in her mind she can't
bring about, because it happens no matter what she tried previously;
it's just that we wouldn't be able to see that by means of analyzing
the process step-by-step, but all of the other reasons I've given
above remain. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>A
theist might say that that's 'actually the agent acting', or
something like that but – whatever that means -, the fact would
remain that that would a partially random agent acting, not one in
which mental processes are sufficient to bring about behavior; it
would be an agent with a randomly altered mind – i.e., a mind
that suffers some alterations that have no sufficient causes; it's
akin to dice-throwing, and in some cases, it might go against
everything the agent had stood for up till then. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
for all of the previous reasons, the claim that non-determinism is
required for freedom ought to be rejected. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
does not mean we can't act of our own accord, of course. We can and
sometimes do have freedom; it's just that indeterminism is not
required for that. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Now,
there is an objection available to the theist, which seems to be
Craig's position: namely, that is lack of <I>causal </I>determination
that is required for freedom to exist, not lack of determinism.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
if an event is determined by previous conditions, then it seems it's
causally determined too, since some the previous conditions would be
causes. How would it be otherwise? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
seems puzzling. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>But
regardless, we can make a case against the requirement of causal
indeterminism independently. If causal indeterminism is true, then no
matter what Alice does up to some time t, all of her thought
processes, intentions, desires, memories, reasoning, are all
insufficient to bring about her decision. So, it seems that the
"decision" might just happen to her, and she might still
shoot Harry. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Again,
the theist might say that that's the agent acting. But how can she
act so quickly – indeed, instantaneously? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Regardless,
as I explained in the <A HREF="#Materialism">previous section</A>,
whatever the correct account of freedom is, if a soul can do it,
particles can do it as well. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="Accountability"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>14)
Accountability </B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Another
point Craig raises is based on the possibility that someone can get
away with evil – Craig calls that a 'practical argument' for
believing in God. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">This is not
a part of the metaethical argument under consideration, strictly
speaking, since Craig does not claim that it supports the premises,
as far as I know. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">However,
he makes this and other arguments in the same context</SPAN></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notemetaonline"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[5]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">,
so I will address them anyway. </SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">According
to Craig, if there is no God, there is no moral accountability, and
it does not matter how we live. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A HREF="#notemetaonline"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[5]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
even without any kind of afterlife, Craig's claim is false: our
choices affect our future, and the future of others; they can cause
happiness, suffering, etc., to us and/or to other people, and of
course that normally matters <I>to us and to others. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
there is in many cases moral accountability even if God does not
exist, like bank robbers going to prison. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>So,
t<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">here
does not need to be an afterlife for justice to be done in many
cases. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">There
may not </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>always
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">be
accountability, but there is in many cases.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
said, the previous considerations, while correct, are actually minor
in this context, since we're talking about a 'practical argument' for
belief in God, and that's epistemically </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>disastrous</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">It
would be </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>irrational
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">for
a person to come to believe that God exists just because they
conclude that there is no accountability in </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>all
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">cases
without God, and that makes that person feel sad – or however
it makes them feel. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
would be some kind of <I>wishful thinking</I>.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>The
fact that having belief B would make a person feel better does not
warrant having belief B. </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
fact, it's not clear to me how this is even psychologically doable. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>How
would someone trying to engage in that kind of wishful thinking go
about it? </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>Bob</B>:
Let's see: I do not have the belief that God exists, or enough
reasons that would convince me of that. However, without God some
people will probably get away with evil, and that is disheartening.
So, from now on, I will believe that God exists. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That's
just not doable – i.e., I don't think that that would actually
result in belief. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Someone
might suggest some kind of Pascal Wager-style conversion, in which
people practice the rituals of a religion in order to somehow
gradually convince themselves that said religion is true. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>I'm
not sure that that would be doable. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>At
least, I'm pretty sure that for many of us, it wouldn't be, though it
might be for others. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>However,
in any event, that would be another <I>irrational</I> course of
action. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>To
be fair, Craig does not attempt to use the practical argument <I>alone</I>.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Instead,
he proposes to use practical arguments to "back up or motivate"
the acceptance of what he believes are sound theoretical arguments. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">However,
that </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>would
be irrational as well</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">:
if the person has not been persuaded by the theoretical arguments,
they would still be engaging in wishful thinking to come to believe
in God. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>In
short, it's still an epistemic nightmare. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
addition to that, of course, Craig provides no good reason to even
suspect that the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Premise 1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">first
premise </FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
his metaethical argument might be true, and thus no good reason to
even suspect that his metaethical argument might be sound...and
that's without counting the fact that </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Going the extra mile"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Divine
Command Theories are not true</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">...</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="Motivation"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>15)
Motivation </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Another
'practical argument' Craig gives is based on the issue of motivations
for doing the right thing. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Of
course, as in the case of the previous 'practical argument', it would
be irrational to believe on account of this.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">That
aside, Craig contends that sometimes self-interest is in conflict
with morality. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#notemetaonline"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><B>[5]</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Of
course, Craig is using 'self-interest' in a way that excludes a
person's interest in doing what's right, simply because it's the
right thing to do.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
usage is common, so it's not a problem, but we need to keep in mind
that that's what's meant by 'self-interest'; it's not the only
interest people have, of course. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Because
of their own psychological makeup, human beings are motivated to do
the right thing; that's also one of our interests, even if not
covered under the label 'self-interest'.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
motivation may be defeasible, but it's there, with the possible
exception of some psychopaths. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Moreover,
it seems to me that in order for an action to be morally good,
motivation counts. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>For
instance, it seems clear that helping people out of fear of damnation
would not be morally good. It wouldn't always be morally wrong,
either. But it wouldn't be morally good. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>It
is true, though, that fear can prevent some people from behaving
immorally. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>On
the other hand, if we're engaging in considerations such as this one
– which have nothing to do with whether God exists or whether
he's required for objective morality -, then we should also assess
the likely consequences of coming to believe that God exists. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">The
fact is that, in addition to the irrationality of adopting a belief
for practical reasons, usually such beliefs are not just some kind of
unspecified theism, but some version of Christianity or Islam, with
all the baggage of false beliefs – including false </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><I>moral
</I></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">beliefs
-, attached to them. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>False
moral beliefs tend to cause people to behave immorally, believing
that they're doing the right thing. Someone might point out that some
non-theists have engaged in terrible behavior, perhaps in the name of
communism or some other ideology. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>That
is true, but the point remains that adopting <I>false </I>moral
beliefs generally results in more immoral behavior, regardless of
whether the false ideology the false moral beliefs come from is
religious or not. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">In
practical terms, people who become non-theists are not likely to
engage in such actions, whereas people who become theists are likely
to become Christians or Muslims aren't likely to kill in the name of
their religion, either, but are likely to follow </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">some</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
its false moral teachings, so conversions do tend to have such
negative consequences. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>Still,
none of that is the main point here. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">The
main point is the </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><I><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">irrationality
</SPAN></I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
using so-called 'practical arguments' for belief, regardless of what
the belief is about. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="Conclusion"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><B>16)
Conclusion</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">Craig
uses strong rhetoric in defense of his metaethical argument, but he
actually does not provide any good reason to even suspect that the
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Premise 1"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">first
premise</FONT></A><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none">
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">of
his argument is true. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="Notes and references"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><B>Notes
and references</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="sinnott"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[1] Craig, William Lane,
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter: <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">God?:
A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist.</SPAN></SPAN> New York:
Oxford University Press. 2003. Pages 67-69. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notepodcast"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[2]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=podcasting_main</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notefivearguments"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[3] Craig, William Lane: "Five
Arguments for God": the article can be found on his site:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notecraigharris"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[4]
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/05/transcript-sam-harris-v-william-lane-craig-debate-%E2%80%9Cis-good-from-god%E2%80%9D.html</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=debates_main</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">In
this case, he does not defend the full metaethical argument, but only
the <A HREF="#Premise 1">first premise</A>. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteindispensability"></A><A NAME="notemetaonline"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[5]
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="NotePoE"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">[6]
At least</SPAN></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">not
if we assume theism is compatible with the existence of morally
imperfect beings, humans, etc., but the evidential problems of evil
and suffering are beyond the scope of this article, so let's leave
them aside for the sake of the argument; the point is that the
supercomputer scenario does not appear to add any </SPAN></SPAN><I>new</I>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">difficulties
for theism. </SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="noteJapan"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[7]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Religion_in_Japan</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none"><A NAME="noteswinburneobligation"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=3>[8]
Swinburne, Richard "The Existence of God", Second Edition.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="noteSwinburne"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: none"><FONT SIZE=3>Cla</FONT></SPAN></FONT>rendon
Press Oxford. Page 130. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="noteDCT1"></A>
<SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">[9]
Someone might extend the term 'Divine Command Theory' to other
theistic metaethical frameworks, even if commands do not play a
central role. In this article, the term is limited to either the kind
of semantic or ontological theories that I've </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#Going the extra mile"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">described</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: normal">.
</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2"><A NAME="notemetaphysical"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">[10]
Assuming that 'water is H<SUB>2</SUB>O" is indeed metaphysically
necessary. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2">
<FONT COLOR="#222222"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 11pt">Else,
let's pick another example, as long as the concept of metaphysical
necessity is coherent – if it isn't, the objection I'm
preempting fails just because of that. </FONT></FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notechimps"></A>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[11]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">That
does not mean that humans are the only animals that are </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral agent"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
agents</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">We know
enough about evolution to know that humans evolved gradually from
other species, and so there is no clear-cut line. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">Some
other hominids probably had some moral awareness, and were capable of
wrongdoing – i.e.. they were </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><A HREF="#moral agent"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">moral
agents</FONT></A><SPAN STYLE="font-variant: normal"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif"><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%">
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">Whether
some extant animals – such as bonobos or chimpanzees –
are moral agents as well might be debatable, but there is no need to
get into that – we may as well assume that they are not. </FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notenaturalism"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[12] I have doubts about the
coherence of the natural/non-natural distinction, but I will leave
that aside for the sake of the argument. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><A NAME="notematerialism"></A>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">[13] I have doubts about the
coherence of the material/non-material distinction, and to some
extent the physical/non-physical distinction. </FONT>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman, serif">However,
I will leave that aside for the sake of the argument, and show that
in any event, Craig's points do not pose any challenge for the
non-theist objectivist. </FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207940809631227645.post-53124202041892736992012-01-04T04:52:00.016-08:002013-01-06T08:41:15.539-08:00The Kalam Cosmological Argument, once again<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="LibreOffice 3.6 (Windows)">
<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20130106;13324393">
<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20130106;13392754">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" DIR="LTR">
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT SIZE=4 STYLE="font-size: 16pt"><B>T</B></FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0047ff"><FONT SIZE=4 STYLE="font-size: 16pt"><B>his
post is out of date. An improved reply to the KCA can be found <A HREF="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-reply-to-kalam-cosmological-argument.html">here</A>.
</B></FONT></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<div align="CENTER" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: #33a3a3;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>The
Kalam Cosmological Argument Still Provides no Support for Theism</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#Introduction"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>0)
Introduction</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>1)
A contradiction follows from William Lane Craig's position</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#If an A-Theory of time is true no timelessg God"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><b>2)
A tensed theory of time entails that it's not the case that the
actual world contains a state of affairs S at which God exists
timelessly</b></u></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699# an A-Theory of time is true infinitely many pastevents"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><b>3)
A tensed theory of time and the first premise of the KCA together
entail that either there is an infinite regress of events, or God
does not exist</b></u></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#infiniteregressAtheory"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>4)
Assuming a tensed theory of time, arguments against an infinite
regress of events do not provide any support for theism in the
context of the KCA</b></u></span></a><span style="color: blue;"><u> </u></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#science1"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">5)
Assuming a tensed theory of time, modern cosmology does not support
theism in the context of the KCA</span></b></u></span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#An alternative reading of the first premise would not"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">6)
Alternative readings of "begins to exist" do not support a
case for theism in the context of the KCA</span></b></u></span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#noalternative"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>7)
No version of the KCA provides any support for theism, assuming a
tensed theory of time</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>8</b></u></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#noalternativeversion"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>)
No version of the KCA provides any support for theism, assuming a
tenseless theory of time</b></u></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>9)
Craig's reply, events, and timelessness</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#contradiction"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>9.1)
A contradiction, no matter what</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#timelesschange"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>9.2)
Timeless change?</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#appendix1"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>10)
The meaning of "begins to exist"</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#Appendix2"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>11)
The first premise</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#Appendix3"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>12)
The "Hilbert Hotel" argument</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#philosiphicalinfinity"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>13)
Philosophical arguments against an infinite past</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#Shandy"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>13.1)
The contradictory case of Tristram Shandy</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#orbitsparity"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>13.2)
Orbits and parity</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#shbbm"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">14)
The "Standard Hot Big Bang Model", a tensed theory of time,
and the KCA</span></b></u></span></span></span></a><span style="color: blue;"><u>
</u></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#assumingcause"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>15)
The (purported) cause of the universe: further analysis</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#firstcause"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>15.1)
A single first cause?</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#changelessness"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>15.2)
Changelessness and immateriality</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#timelessnessa"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>15.3)
Timelessness, once again</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#spacelessness"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><b>15.4)
Spacelessness</b></u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: blue;"><u>
</u></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#power"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><b>15.5)
Power</b></u></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#personhood"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><b>15.6)
Personhood</b></u></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 2cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#personalvsscientific"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><b>15.6.1)
Personal explanations and scientific explanations</b></u></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 2cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#otherproperties"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><b>15.6.2)
Other properties of the first cause</b></u></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 2cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#free"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>15.6.3)
"Free agency</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#godmeaning"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>15.7)
The meaning of "God"</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#Conclusion"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">16)
Conclusion</span></b></u></span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notesreferences"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Notes
and references</b></u></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /><br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="Introduction"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>0)
Introduction:</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">a)
In a <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/kalam-cosmological-argument-provides-no.html">article
I posted earlier</a>, I argued that the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(KCA) </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">does
not provide any support for theism. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This
article is for the most part similar to that one, but with some
modifications, especially to address <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection">Craig's
reply to one of my previous objections</a>. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
posted a <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/kalam-cosmological-argument-craigs.html">brief
reply</a> to Craig's reply earlier, but I decided to post a new full
argument, addressing the matter in more detail. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Also,
I've added some new points, remove a few I think were superfluous,
and introduced some modifications in the structure of the post and in
some of the arguments. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">b)
The premises of the KCA are: </span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#kalam"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>[0]</b></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">P1:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">P2:
The universe began to exist. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">William
Lane Craig and other theists offer a number of arguments in support
of the premises of the KCA, concluding that the universe has a cause.
Then, they provide further arguments in support of the claim that the
cause is God. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
the </span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">first
section</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">,
I will show that a contradiction follows from William Lane Craig's
position. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
the</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#If an A-Theory of time is true no timelessg God">
</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#If an A-Theory of time is true no timelessg God"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">second
section,</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
will prov</span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">e
a more general result about the incompatibility of a tensed theory of
time and the timeless existence of God. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
those two sections, for the sake of the argument I will not challenge
the concept of timelessness as used in the Kalam Cosmological
Argument. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Later,
I will address <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection">Craig's reply</a> to the
objection to the KCA that I raise in the first two sections - more
precisely, his reply to the objection I raised in the first two
sections of <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/kalam-cosmological-argument-provides-no.html">a
previous version of this argument</a>, but the objection is
essentially the same. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Leaving
aside the objection I mentioned above, I will <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#timelessnessa">later</a>
challenge on different grounds the claim that God is timeless sans
the universe but temporal with it. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
other sections, I will raise other objections to the KCA, as well as
to the added conclusion - even assuming that the universe had a cause
of its existence - that the cause is God. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
most of this article, I will focus on William Lane Craig's version of
the KCA, given that that is the most common one. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">However,
I will also address several potential alternatives, showing that they
provide no support for theism,</span> either. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On
a terminological note, I will use the word “argument”
loosely, to refer to both the formal argument, and the informal
arguments used to support the premises of the formal argument. I
think this is a common way of speaking, and context should prevent
any ambiguity despite some notational abuse. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="AcontradictioninCraig"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>1)
A contradiction follows from William Lane Craig's position </b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>William
Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#event1">[2]</a>: </b></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">By
an “event,” one means any change. Since any change takes
time, there are no instantaneous events so defined. Neither could
there be an infinitely slow event, since such an “event”
would, in reality, be a changeless state. Therefore, any event will
have a finite, nonzero duration.</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>William
Lane Craig<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#rsf1">[3]</a></b></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
reason I hold God to be timeless without the universe is that I think
that an infinite regress of events is impossible, and, according to a
relational theory of time, in the absence of any events time would
not exist. The reason I hold God to be temporal since the beginning
of the universe is that the creation of the universe brings God into
a new relation, namely, co-existing with the universe, and such an
extrinsic change alone (not to mention God’s exercise of causal
power) is sufficient for a temporal relation. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>William
Lane Craig<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#rsf2">[4]</a></b></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So
if God is timeless, he is also unchanging, but it does not follow
that He cannot change. I’d say that He can change and if He
were to do so, He would cease to be timeless. And that’s
exactly what I think He did. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">God
<i>changes </i><span style="font-style: normal;">from timeless to
temporal. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Any
change is an event</span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>,
</i></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">so
let </span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">E(0)
be the event “God changes from being timeless to being
temporal”.</span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#othergodchanges"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>[5]</b></span></span></span></span></a><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Now,
if t=0 is the beginning of time, then E(0) is an event that </span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>ends</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-style: normal;">at
t=0, since t=0 is the first time at which God is temporal. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since
every event has a finite, non-zero duration, E(0) has some duration
e>0, and ends at t=0. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Then,
there is a time interval of duration e prior to t=0. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">That
</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>contradicts</b></i></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">the
hypothesis that t=0 is the beginning of time. </span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#creationevent"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>[6]</b></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
will address Craig's reply to this objection in more detail <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection">later</a>,
but in light of that reply, let's clarify a few points: </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">First, Craig did not
define "change" at all. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Instead,
he defined "event" as "any change", using
"change" in the usual sense of the word, and </span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>claimed
that any change takes time. </i></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So, I'm in no way
confusing different senses of "change". </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Rather, I'm using
the examples of God's changing from timeless to temporal, God
changing from not knowing any tensed truths to knowing some tensed
truths, etc., and showing that a contradiction follows from Craig's
position. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Second, the quotes
in which Craig claims that God changed from timeless to temporal are
useful to illustrate the contradiction, but not at all required to
make my point.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In fact, it follows
from Craig's claims that - for instance - there is some state of the
world S at which God does not know any tensed truths - because there
are no tensed facts at S -, followed by a state of the world at which
God does know at least one tensed truth. <br />So, God actually changed
from not knowing any tensed truths, to knowing some tensed truths or
- if one prefers - the state of the world changed, from a state at
which there is no entity that knows any tensed truths, to a state at
which there is at least one entity that knows at least one tensed
truth. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Third, even if one
puts aside the claim that the changes in question have a non-zero,
finite duration, one can consider - as I did above - both cases:</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If the changes are
instantaneous - i.e., their duration is zero -, then a contradiction
follows. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If the changes, on
the other hand, take time - i.e., their duration is greater than zero
-, then a contradiction follows. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">One way or another,
a contradiction follows. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Fourth, as it should
be clear, none of the above requires that one define "event"
as Craig does. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Again, it suffices
to point out that if the changes in question are instantaneous, a
contradiction follows, and if it's not instantaneous, a contradiction
follows, anyway. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Fifth, in case
someone claims that the changes are somehow timeless, or partly
timeless, I will point out that uttering the word "timeless"
does not constitute a "get out of logic free" card. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What would "timeless
change" even mean? </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
will address those issues in greater detail when I address <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection">Craig's
reply to my objection</a>. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="If an A-Theory of time is true no timelessg God"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>2)
A tensed theory of time entails that it's not the case that the
actual world contains a state of affairs S at which God exists
timelessly</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's
assume, under a tensed theory of time, that the actual world contains
a state of affairs S at which God exists timelessly. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">At
S, God does not have any knowledge of tensed truths - if he did, he
would know that some events are <i>past </i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-style: normal;">(or
present)</span></span><i>, </i><span style="font-style: normal;">and
then God's state would not be timeless; if some events are past at S,
then S is past or present. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Yet,
today, God knows tensed truths: he knows, for instance, that World
War Two has already ended. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
we can consider the event <span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-style: normal;">E(2):
“God changes from not having any knowledge of tensed facts, to
knowing some tensed truths”. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since
E(2) is an event, it has a duration e>0, and ends at some time t1.
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
there is a time t2 < t1, then God does not yet have knowledge of
tensed facts. However, there are tensed facts. But that's impossible.
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Therefore,
there is no time earlier that t1. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
then, given that E(2) is an event of duration e > 0 that ends at
t1, there is an interval of duration e that comes before t1,
<i><b>contradicting</b></i> the conclusion that there is no time
earlier than t1. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Someone
might object that, perhaps, there are events that have a zero
duration, after all, and that E(2) is one such event. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's
suppose that the event E(2), which ends at t1, and has duration 0. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Then,
since E(2) ends at t1, then its beginning is also at t1. Hence, at
t1, it is not the case that God has knowledge of any tensed facts –
since the event starts at t1 -, but also, at t1, God has knowledge of
some tensed facts – since the event ends at t1. But that is
impossible. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
this objection fails. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Another
objection might be that E(2) does not start at t1, but at timeless
state S.</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
using the word "timeless" does not allow one to get around
logic: if the event E(2) ends at a time t=t1, and its duration is
actually <i>zero</i>, it follows its beginning is also present at
t=t1. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Finally,
as a desperate move, I suppose that someone might try something like
"The concept of duration doesn't apply to E(2), because E(2) is
a partially timeless event". </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">As
I pointed out earlier, </span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
word "timeless" does not constitute a "get out of
logic free" card. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What does "timeless
change" even mean? </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
will address that problem in greater detail when I address <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection">Craig's
reply to my previous objection</a></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">,
but the conclusion is that if a tensed theory of time is true, the
actual world contains no state of affairs at which God exists
timelessly. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Also,
the previous reasoning does not depend on other assumptions about
time that Craig makes, such as relationalism or an intrinsic metric,
or whether presentism or a "growing-block" theory is true. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
the cases of relationalism vs. substantivalism, as well as
"growing-block" vs. presentism, it's clear that they're
orthogonal to the previous points, which don't mention any of the
contentious issues. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
for a metric, if there is no intrinsic metric, the duration of E(2)
would depend on the metric, and that would be conventional. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
the fact that E(2) has a non-zero duration would <i>not</i>: on
metric relativism about time, events still have a positive, nonzero
duration; the previous reasoning against E(2) having a zero duration
holds - and assuming a zero duration would still yield a
contradiction, using the same argument as before. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">An
alternative way of seeing this is that, even on metric
conventionalism, there still is a relation of <i>before and after</i>;
moreover, on conventionalism, it's <i>changes</i> <span style="font-style: normal;">that
determine before and after. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">So,
the beginning of the event </span>E(2) would still happen <i>before</i>
the end of it, and so there would be a time prior to t1 contradicting
the conclusion that there is no time prior to t=t1. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
in brief, if a tensed theory of time is true, then it's not the case
that the actual world contains a state of affairs at which God exists
timelessly. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name=" an A-Theory of time is true infinitely many pastevents"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>3)
A tensed theory of time and the first premise of the KCA together
entail that either there is a beginningless infinite regress of
events, or God does not exist</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
first premise of the KCA states that everything that begins to exist,
has a cause. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">While
I don't think that Craig's understanding of the terms </span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#meaningbegins"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[8]</span></span></a><span style="color: #231f20;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">matches
the usual meaning of “comes into being”, or the meaning
of "begins to exist", I will assume Craig's understanding
of the meanings in this section.</span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notebeginmeaning1"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><b>[9]</b></u></span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
let's assume a tensed theory of time, and suppose that the first
premise is true and God exists. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since
God does not have a cause, he does not have a beginning. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since
the</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#If an A-Theory of time is true no timelessg God">
</a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#If an A-Theory of time is true no timelessg God">actual
world contains no state of affairs at which God exists timelessly</a>,
then there is no first time t at which God exists. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
it follows that for every time t, there is a time u < t, such that
God exists at u. </span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#temporalalone"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>[10]</b></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now,
at t, God has knowledge of at least one tensed truth that he does not
know at u: namely, that u is past, and t is present. In other words,
God's knowledge of tensed truths is upgraded as time goes by,
regardless of whether there is any other change in any other entity. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
if u < t, then we can consider the event E(u,t): “God comes
to know that u is past, and t is present”.</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#discretetime"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>[11]</b></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Therefore,
considering a sequence of times t(k), for every natural number k, in
which t(k+1) < t(k), and considering that God exists at t(k) for
every natural number k, we can conclude that there are infinitely
many events E((k+1),k)), for every natural number k. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">From
the way the sequence is constructed, it's clear that it has no
beginning point; moreover, since God does not begin to exist and
doesn't exist timelessly, there is no t=0. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Also,
in the previous arguments in this section, no assumption other than a
tensed theory of time and the first premise of the KCA were made. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
particular, the result is independent of the issues time
relationalism vs. substantivalism, intrinsic metric vs. metric
conventionalism, and presentism vs. "growing-block" theory.
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On
the other hand, if there is an intrinsic metric of time and any
entity with a metric-finite past begins to exist, then under these
assumptions (i.e., the first premise of the KCA, plus a tensed theory
of time), either there is a metric-infinite past, or God does not
exist - since God did not begin to exist and doesn't exist
timelessly. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<a href="" name="firstpremise"></a><a href="" name="infiniteregressAtheory"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>4)
Assuming a tensed theory of time, a</b></span></span></span><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>rguments
against an infinite regress of events do not provide any support for
theism in the context of the KCA</b></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notsupportnote"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">[12]</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: blue;">
</span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">William
Lane Craig provides two philosophical arguments intended to show that
an infinite regress of events is metaphysically impossible, and in
that way support the second premise of the KCA. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">However,
neither the first nor the second argument, nor any other argument
against such possibility, provide any support for theism in the
context of the KCA</span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notsupportnote"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[12]</span></span></a><span style="color: blue;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">,
</span></b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">and
under a tensed theory of time. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
fact, given the result of </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699# an A-Theory of time is true infinitely many pastevents"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">section
3</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
on a tensed theory of time, if such an infinite regress of events is
impossible - or just not actual</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">-,
then either the first premise of the KCA is false, or God does not
exist. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Thus,
no argument intended to establish that an infinite regress of events
is logically or metaphysically impossible, or even that there is no
such regress in the actual world, can help a theistic case based on
the KCA. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
result is general in the sense that it's not limited to Craig's
particular philosophical arguments, and also in that it does not
depend on assumptions such as time relationalism, an intrinsic metric
of time, or presentism - since the result of </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699# an A-Theory of time is true infinitely many pastevents"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">section
3</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">does
not depend on any such assumptions, either. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">It
still uses Craig's understanding of "begins to exist", but
later I will show that </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#An alternative reading of the first premise would not"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">alternative
readings of "begis to exist" do not help a case for theism,
either.</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"> </span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<a href="" name="science1"></a><span style="color: blue;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">5)
Assuming a tensed theory of time, modern cosmology does not support
theism in the context of the KCA</span></b></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notsupportnote"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[12]</span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
addition to the two philosophical arguments, Craig maintains that
modern (scientific) cosmology supports the second premise of the KCA.
However, that's not our concern in this section. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
issue is whether, if that were true, that would provide support for
theism in this context<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
a cosmological model entails an infinite regress of events</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#eventmeaning"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>[13]</b></span></span></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">in the universe, and
a beginning point, that's incompatible with a tensed theory of time,
since an infinity can't be reached by finite successive addition from
a beginning point. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Note
that that does not depend on whether the events are of equal
duration. Even if they are increasingly short, and even if the
infinite series converges, it seems one couldn't engage in an
infinite addition - any number of finite steps would remain finite. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
a cosmological model entails that there is only a finite regress of
past events and a beginning at some time t=0, then in light of
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699# an A-Theory of time is true infinitely many pastevents">section
three</a>, a theist who supports a tensed theory of time and the
first premise of the KCA ought to accept, on pain of inconsistency,
that there are infinitely many events prior to the beginning of the
universe. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
if so, someone might posit a multiverse, megaverse, older universe -
or whatever one calls it - as a possible candidate to be the cause of
the universe - i.e., as an alternative to God. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Cosmological
models of the universe do not contain a claim that a beginning of
what they call “the universe” is also a beginning without
any previous universes, multiverses, etc., and the second premise of
the KCA does not provide any support for theism if "universe"
is understood in a restrictive sense, excluding older universes,
multiverses, etc. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
this attempt to support theism using scientific cosmology fails. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A
possibility that we still need to consider is a scientific model with
a metric-finite past but with an infinite regress of past events in
the universe, and no beginning point. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Under
such model, and under the main <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#An alternative reading of the first premise would not">alternative
understandings of "begins to exist"</a>, the universe did
not begin to exist, so that would be of no help for the KCA. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
under <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#meaningbegins">Craig's understanding of "begins
to exist"</a>, the universe did begin to exist in that case. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There
are, however, insurmountable problems for the theist defender of the
KCA under this hypothesis. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">For
instance, </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">under
these conditions, a </span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">metric-finite
past entails a beginning of existence.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Hence,
if God exists, then he does not have a finite past, since he did not
begin to exist. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">That
entails that if God exists, he existed at some time t </span><i>before</i>
<span style="font-style: normal;">the infinitely regress of past
events in the metric-finite past of the universe occurred. That means
that, from t to, say, the year 2000, an infinite </span><i>progress
</i><span style="font-style: normal;">of events has happened, by
finite successive addition and from a beginning point, which is
impossible under a tensed theory.</span> <span style="font-style: normal;">Hence,
God does not exist. So, this road is closed to the theist as well. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="An alternative reading of the first premise would not"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>6)
Alternative readings of "begins to exist" do not support a
case for theism in the context of the KCA[</b></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notsupportnote"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">12]</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: blue;">
</span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
will analyze two alternatives, and conclude that they provide no such
support. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">While
I can't rule out that someone might come up with a different
alternative, it seems to me they would probably include highly
counterintuitive scenarios like two-coordinate time, or
undifferentiated time, etc. - the usual ones seem to be covered. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
so, it's not clear that we would have any reliable intuitions about
causation in such scenarios - apart from the fact that that would
probably not match any common usage, either -, so it's not clear how
they would derive support for the first premise. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
it seems to me that the following two variants cover most ground
(and, in any case, the burden would be on someone who proposes an
alternative reading). </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>6.1)
First alternative reading</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="firstalternativereading"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On
this reading, "B begins to exist" is understood as meaning
the same as "B comes into being" - as Craig claims -, but
"B comes into being" (and so, "B begins to exist")
is not understood in the sense posited by Craig, but in the sense
that there is an <i>event</i> "B comes into existence" -
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">i.e., a change from a state of
affairs at which B does not exist, to one at which B does exist. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On
this understanding of "B begins to exist", a first moment
of the universe would <i>not</i> entail the universe began to exist.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
order for the universe to begin to exist, there would have to be a
change from a state at which the universe does not exist, to one at
which it does. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Moreover,
that state of affairs at which the universe does not exist would have
to be something other than a multiverse, etc. - "universe"
in the second premise has to be understood broadly, including such
multiverses; else, someone might always posit an older universe,
multiverse, etc., blocking the argument to theism, </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Modern
cosmology makes no claims about that kind of state and/or event, and
even if an argument established that an infinite regress of events is
logically or metaphysically impossible, or that at least there is no
such infinite regress in the actual world, that alone would not
entail that the actual world contains a state at which no universe,
multiverse, etc., exists, and then an event "the universe comes
into existence". </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Someone
could try to establish such state and event by means of other kinds
of arguments - say, a contingency argument, or an argument to design
-, and then draw support for theism from that. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
don't believe any such argument succeeds; however, if one such
argument were successful, it would be inaccurate to say that the KCA
provides any support for theism. Rather, the fact would be that the
other argument provides support both for theism, and for the second
premise of the KCA as well. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So,
the conclusion is that this alternative reading of "begins to
exist" does not help a case for theism in the context of the
KCA</span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notsupportnote"><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">[12]</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
either. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
results of this subsection make no special assumptions about a theory
of time; so, they hold regardless of whether relationalism is true,
whether time has an intrinsic metric, or even whether a tensed theory
of time is true. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="secondalternative"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>6.2)
Second alternative reading</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Another
alternative reading - which I think is the closest match of the
meaning of the words; see </span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#appendix1"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">section
10</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">for
more details - would be:</span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notehyp2"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>[14]</b></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;">
</span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A.
x begins to exist at [t1,t2] iff there is a finite closed interval
[t1,t2] such that x does not exist at any time prior to t1, and x
exists at t2. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">B.
x comes into being iff there is an event</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">-
</span></span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">that
is, change - from a state of affairs at which x does not exist, to a
state of affairs at which it does. </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
will address the matter of whether belief in the first premise is
justified in </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#Appendix2"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">section
eleven</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
but for the moment let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that
it is justified under this understanding of "begins to exist".</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Could
the KCA be used to support theism, then? </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
answer is still </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">no:
</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">under
this understanding of "begins to exist", all the relevant
results of sections </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699# an A-Theory of time is true infinitely many pastevents"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">three</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#infiniteregressAtheory"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">four</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
</span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#science1"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">five</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">can
be derived as well, by means of essentially the same reasoning, and
just the obvious, minor adaptations. For the sake of brevity, I will
not repeat those points here. </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="noalternative"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>7)
No version of the KCA provides any support for theism, assuming a
tensed theory of time</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
previous sections show that, under Craig's reading of "begins to
exist": </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">a)
Craig's version of the KCA provides no support for theism. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">b)
Assuming a tensed theory of time, dropping assumptions like an
intrinsic metric of time, time relationalism or presentism does not
help a case for theism, either. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">c)
In general, assuming a tensed theory of time, arguments against the
logical and/or the metaphysical possibility of an infinite regress of
events - or even against the existence of such regress in the actual
world - would not help the theist's case, either. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">d)
Arguments allegedly based on science do not provide support for
theism in this context, either. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That
seems to leave no possibilities left, at least assuming a tensed
theory of time, and Craig's reading of "begins to exist". </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Moreover,
assuming a tensed theory of time, </span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#An alternative reading of the first premise would not"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">section
6</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">shows
that two alternative readings of the first premise would not help a
case for theism, either: Those readings seem to cover most possible
non-unusual readings. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
the previous sections show that, on a tensed theory of time, the KCA
provides no support for theism. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">At
this point, there appears to be no options left to consider, if one
accepts Craig's assertion that a tensed theory of time is a requisite
for the KCA</span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#Atheoryneeded">
</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#Atheoryneeded"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[15]</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>.
</b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Still,
one need not agree with Craig on that, so let's assess whether
someone could assume a tenseless theory of time, and then use the KCA
to support theism. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="noalternativeversion"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>8)
No version of the KCA provides any support for theism, assuming a
tenseless theory of time</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On
a tenseless theory, and going by Craig's understanding of "begins
to exist", then the second premise of the KCA is not true. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">As
a matter of fact, on a tenseless theory of time, </span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">nothing</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">begins
to exist</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">in
</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#beginsdefinition">the
sense of "begins to </a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#beginsdefinition">exist"
proposed by Craig</a></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
since there are no tensed facts. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">On
the other hand, under the </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#firstalternativereading"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">first
alternative reading</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">of
the first premise considered above, things can begin to exist on a
tenseless theory of time. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">However,
</span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#firstalternativereading"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">under
that reading, the KCA provides no support for theism, even under a
tenseless theory of time</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So,
let's consider an argument based on the </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#secondalternative"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">second
alternative reading of "begins to exist"</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
assuming a tenseless theory of time. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Would
a variant of the KCA based on that reading provide any support for
theism? </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
will argue in the </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#Appendix2"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">section
eleven</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">that
belief in the first premise is not justified, anyway, but that's
another matter. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Here,
the question is whether - granting both a tenseless theory and the
first premise under the </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#secondalternative">second
</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#secondalternative">alternative reading</a></span></span><span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">-,
the KCA provides support for theism. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
seems not: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On
a tenseless theory of time, it appears that the past, the present and
the future are ontologically equivalent. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
it seems then that any successful argument for the metaphysical (or
logical) necessity of a beginning of time could be adapted to be an
argument for the metaphysical (or logical) necessity of an <i>end of
time</i>. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Hence,
a theist attempting this line of argumentation ought to accept that,
<i>necessarily</i>, if God exists, he will eventually become still
and never act again. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Of
course, if a theist also holds that God exists necessarily, she ought
to accept that, necessarily, God will eventually become still and
never act again. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That
necessity could be metaphysical or logical depending on the case, but
given usual descriptions of God, it's hard to see a way around that
in either case, even if the precise moment at which the end of time
will happen is still a contingent matter. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
let's say that that is not a problem after all. Even then, it seems
intuitively clear that there is no contradiction involved in the
claim of an infinite future progress of events. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Also,
there appears to be no intuitive support for the idea that the future
is closed in that way - in fact, that's highly counterintuitive -, so
attempts to use intuitions to show metaphysical impossibility would
fail just for that reason, independently of other considerations
about such arguments. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Perhaps,
an alternative would be for a theist to argue for the claim that even
if a beginning of time may not be logically or metaphysically
necessary, it is at least factual. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">However,
that kind of argument would have to be empirical, and there is no
support in present-day cosmology for such a claim: even if a
scientific model posited no infinite regress of events the universe
</span><i>in a very narrow sense of the word "universe"</i><span style="font-style: normal;">,
they would probably make no claim about an entire series of past
events, which might comprise an older universe, multiverse, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="craigobjection"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>9)
Craig's reply, events, and timelessness</b></span></span></span> </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">After
someone raised the issue on his website, Craig replied<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notecraigreply">[16]</a></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">to the objection I
raised in <a href="http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/kalam-cosmological-argument-provides-no.html#AcontradictioninCraig">section
one of an earlier version of my argument</a></span></span> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">-
which is the same I've raised in <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">section
one of this article</a>, though I provided a shorter explanation of
my objection in the earlier version. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Craig
replied that God's gaining knowledge of tensed facts (for instance)
does not qualify as an event, since it's "instantaneous".
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notecraigreply">[16]</a></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
his claim is </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>false</i></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">.
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">H</a></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">e
defined 'event' as 'any change', and those are obviously changes.</span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">He
did not define 'change' excluding 'instantaneous' changes, as one can
easily see from the quotation from his book I posted earlier.</span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That
aside, let's continue analyzing Craig's reply to my objection: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>William
Lane Craig<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notecraigreply">[16]</a></b></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9269"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
reason I give for so restricting the range of “event” is
that I’m talking about changes, and changes take time to occur.</span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">First,
Craig does not restrict the range of 'event' at all in his
definition, and so he gave no reason for restricting the range at
all. Instead, he </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>defined</b></i></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">'event' as 'any
change', and then </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>argued
</b></i></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">from
there, that any event will have a finite, non-zero duration. So, the
'restriction' is a </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">consequence
of his reasoning, </span></i></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">not
a </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">stipulative
definition. </span></i></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">That
is obvious in <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">the quotation from his
book I gave for context</a> (due to copyright reasons, I may not post
long parts of his book, but that part suffices to make that clear; of
course, I invite readers to take a look at his book more closely in
case of any doubt) </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Second,
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">that
changes take time to occur is precisely one of my points, which I use
to derive a contradiction on Craig's position. </span></i></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Again,
Craig actually </span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>claimed</i></span></span></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">that changes take
time to occur. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
fact, he claimed that there are no instantaneous events <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">precisely
because any change takes time</a>, and he defined "event"
as "any change". </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
I pointed out that the </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>change</i></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">- for instance -
</span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">from
a state S at which God does not know any tensed truths (because there
aren't any tensed facts), to a state at which God knows some tensed
truths (at t=0) is, well, a </span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>change</i></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">,
and changes take time to occur - as Craig stated -, from which <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#If an A-Theory of time is true no timelessg God">a
contradiction follows.</a></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But let's see a
little more of the reply:
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>William
Lane Craig<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notecraigreply">[16]</a></b></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #000066;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Similarly,
God’s coming to believe all tensed truths would not qualify as
an event, since it, too, happens instantaneously.</span></span></span>
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But
that is obviously false. Since it's a change, then it follows - <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">by
his own definition</a> - that it's an event. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
fact, by claiming that it's instantaneous, Craig is only
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">contradicting
his own claim that all changes take time. </span></i></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Once
again, this is <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">obvious from my
previous quotation on his book</a>. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Yet,
in his reply to the objection I raised, Craig <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9269">claims</a></span></span></span>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notecraigreply"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">[16]</span></span></span></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">that
God's gaining knowledge of tensed facts is instantaneous, and
therefore it's not a change in God in "this technical sense".
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">But
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>there
is no such "this technical sense" of "change" in
Craig's KCA, since - </i></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">as
we can see in his book</a> - </span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Craig
</span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>did
not</i></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>define
"change" at all.</i></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">The
only sense of 'change' is the usual sense of 'change' in English; in
other words, he left 'change' undefined, used the usual concept in
order to define "event" - as is apparent in the quote <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">above</a>
-, and then <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">argued from there -
keeping in mind the usual meaning of 'change' -, that any change
takes time</a>. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Of
course, God's change from not knowing any tensed truths to knowing at
least some tensed truths is, well, a </span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>change</i></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">in
the usual sense of the word 'change' in English, and <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">by
Craig's own reasoning,</a> we can conclude that it takes time, and
thus derive a contradiction, <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">as I
did above</a>. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">So,
in short, Craig did not </span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>define
</i></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">"events"
as having zero duration. Neither did he define "change" as
having a non-zero duration, or at all. Instead, he defined "event"
as "any change", and </span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>assessed
</i></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">that
events/changes have non-zero duration, as <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">the
previous quotation</a> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#event1">from his book</a> shows
(once again, I invite readers interested in more details can take a
look at his book and see more context for themselves). Yet, the
changes I'm talking about are obviously changes in the usual sense of
the word "change" in English - which is the one he was
using in the context of the KCA -, and assuming that they have a
non-zero duration, a contradiction follows </span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u>as
explained</u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">(I
will <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#contradiction">later</a> show that, in any case, a
contradiction follows regardless of whether we assume that the
changes take time or are instantaneous). </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
addition to the previous claims, in his </span></span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">reply
to my objection, Craig contends that in the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">second
and third quotations</a>, he was using "change" in a
different sense from the sense in which he used the word in the
context of the KCA, and that in those <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">second
and third quotations</a>, he "merely" meant that God does
not have the same properties in his timeless state as he does in his
first temporal state<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notecraigreply">[16]</a>. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But an analysis of
his words show that he <i>clearly</i> did not <i><b>merely</b></i>
meant that - that is only <i>part</i> of what he meant. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In fact, Craig said
that God changed <i>from</i> timeless <i>to</i> temporal, and ceased
to be timeless. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">He did not say hat
God changed <i>from</i> temporal <i>to</i> timeless, or that he
ceased to be timeless - clearly, that <i>would not have meant the
same</i>, and Craig himself does not accept the possibility of change
from temporal to timeless. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">So,
when Craig said that God had changed - in the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">second
and third quotations</a> - he did not merely meant that God in his
timeless state has different properties from God in his first
temporal state. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The claim of a
change is not only a claim that the properties differ, but there is
also a <i>direction: </i>God has some properties in his timeless
state, and <i>changes</i> and has some other properties in his first
temporal state: it goes in one direction, not the other. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In other words, the
change is from the timeless to the temporal state, not vice versa, so
what he meant is not <i>merely</i> that God's properties in his
timeless state are different from his properties in his first
temporal state: change is not directionless. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">So,
that </span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>still</i></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">is
the usual sense of "change" in English, as he used in his
book, in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as far as one can tell from
his statements. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So, in brief: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">a) Craig's claim
that he used 'change' in a technical sense in his book, is a false
claim. He used it in the ordinary sense of the words. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">b)
Craig's claim that he used 'changed' to merely say that God has
different properties in his timeless and first temporal states, is
also </span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>false.</i></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Once
again, he used 'changed' in the ordinary sense of the words in
English. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">c)
The fact remains that <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">a
contradiction follows from Craig's position</a>. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">That
aside, Craig also maintains<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notecraigreply">[16]</a> that in
any case, one can change the definition of "event" in the
second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and clarify that
the events in question are events of non-zero, finite, equal
duration. Actually, if he did that, he would be withdrawing his claim
that any change takes time, rather than merely clarifying his claims.
</span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However, that is a
side point. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">The
crucial point is that if we do that, or if we we make, for the sake
of the argument, the false assumption that Craig said what he later
claimed he had said, </span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>a
contradiction still follows</i></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In fact, a
contradiction can be derived without any assumptions about what Craig
said, as the next subsection shows. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="contradiction"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>9.1)
A contradiction, no matter what</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In this subsection: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">a) By 'event' I mean
the same as 'change'. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">b) By 'P(2)' I mean
the property of knowing at least one tensed truth. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">c) By 'E(2)' I mean
the event/change 'God changes from not having P(2) to having P(2) for
the first time'. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">d) By 'S' I mean the
allegedly timeless state of God, at which God does not have P(2). </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">e) By 't=0' I mean
the first temporal state of the world - and of God. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If E(2) has a
duration e>0, then since E(2) finished at t=0, there is a temporal
interval of duration e>0, prior to t=0. But that is a
contradiction. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If E(2) has a zero
duration, then since the final state of E(2) - namely, the state of
God's having property P(2) for the first time - obtains at t=0, and
the duration of E(2) is actually zero, then the initial state of E(2)
- a state at which it is not the case that God has property P(2) -
also obtains at t=0. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Hence, at t=0, God
has property P(2), and it is not the case that God has property P(2).
But that is a contradiction. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Someone might object
that the initial state of E(2) is not present at t=0, but at timeless
state S, and the final state is present at t=0. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">However,
my point here is that if the end of the event of zero duration is at
t=0, and the duration is, well, </span></span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>zero</b></i></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
then the </span></span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>conclusion</b></i></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
that the beginning of the event is at t=0 as well, entailing a
contradiction. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In brief: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">1)
If E(2) has a non-zero duration - which follows from <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">Craig's
original claim</a>, in this book -, then a contradiction follows. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">2)
If E(2) is instantaneous - which is <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection">what
Craig says in his reply to my objection</a> -, then a contradiction
follows. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The contradiction is
inescapable. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Note that even if
Craig chooses to use the word 'change' in a non-standard way, and no
longer calls that change in God (and it's a change in the ordinary
sense of the word 'change') a change, that is irrelevant to my point.
I'm using 'change' in the ordinary sense, and showing that a
contradiction follows anyway. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="timelesschange"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>9.2)
Timeless change?</b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I guess Craig or
someone else might then claim that those changes - and they are
changes, in the usual sense of the word 'change' in English - do not
have either a zero duration, or a non-zero duration, but somehow
they're timeless or partially timeless, and somehow for that
so-called 'reason' one shouldn't speak of duration. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">But
if they did </span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>that</i></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">,
I would first point out that Craig claimed that the first cause is -
at least in his timeless state, 'sans the universe' -,
</span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#changelessness"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u>changeless</u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">.</span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage192"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u>[17]</u></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In addition, I would
take issue with the meaningfulness of his claims: </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Craig claims that
the changes are 'instantaneous', but somehow they don't have a zero
duration? </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What does Craig even
mean, then, by 'instantaneous', if not 'having a zero duration'? </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Moreover, how are
those changes are somehow 'timeless' or 'partially timeless' changes?
</span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What would that even
mean? </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">If
by "X is timeless", Craig means that X does not stand in
any temporal relations, then the problem remains: how can an object
exist in the first state of the world, and then change, and </span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>still
</i></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">be
timeless in that first state, given that it seems it </span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u>does
not differ from a temporal state at t=0</u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">?
</span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">And
if "timelessness" is something like "absence of all
events" (i.e., an absence of all changes), then there cannot be
a timeless change, so the changes I take into consideration either
have a non-zero duration (and so, </span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u>a
contradiction follows</u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">)
or a zero duration (and still, </span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#contradiction"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u>a
contradiction follows</u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">).
</span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
fact, as I pointed out above, Craig himself contends that God, in his
timeless state, is </span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#changelessness"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u>changeless</u></span></span></span></span></a><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage192">[17]</a>,</u></span></span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">so
'timeless change' (if meaningful at all) would also contradict
Craig's claims. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What if Craig means
something else by 'timeless'? </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In any case,
'timeless change' is not an option, by Craig's own words. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Regardless, let's
leave the previous contradictions aside in this subsection for a
moment, and show that, in any case, a 'timeless' God who becomes
temporal is an untenable claim: more precisely, the reason the
contradictions can derived is that what he proposes is actually
ontologically indistinguishable from God at t=0, even though he calls
the state 'timeless' and denies that it's t=0, so he's describing a
first temporal state, and yet denying that it's temporal. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's consider two
scenarios, ordering the states of the world in terms of the direction
given by supporters of the KCA - i.e., the world changes from one
state to the next. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="scenarios"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Scenario 1:</b></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>First
state of the world: </i></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Timeless
state S. The only object is O, which exists uncaused. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Second
state of the world: </i></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Temporal
state. t=0. The objects are O and U, and O is the cause of the
existence of U; they all exist temporally at t=0. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Third
state of the world: </i></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Temporal
state; t=r > 0. The objects are O, U and, perhaps some other
objects. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Scenario
2:</b></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>First
state of the world:</i> </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">t=0.
The only object is O, which exists uncaused. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Second
state of the world:</i> </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Temporal
state. t=a>0. The objects are O and U, and O is the cause of the
existence of U. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Third
state of the world:</i> </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Temporal
state; t=r > a. The objects are O, U and, perhaps some other
objects. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A
key question here is: What is the <i>ontological</i> difference
between the two? </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Saying
that one has a timeless state and the other does not, so that is the
ontological difference, would miss the point: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
point is that this so-called "timeless" state <i>seems to
behave exactly like a temporal state at t=0, even if the word
"timeless" is deployed. </i></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
other words, there is no <i>ontological</i> difference, even if
different <i>words</i> - of very dubious meaningfulness to say the
least - are used. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Furthermore,
on the issue of timelessness, Craig makes the following claim: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>William
Lane Craig: </b></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#event1"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>[2]</b></span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-style: normal;">If
not, then since the universe cannot </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">ever
have existed in an absolutely quiescent state, the universe must have
had a beginning. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
which sense can object O be in an “absolutely quiescent”
state in scenario 1, but not in scenario 2? </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
both cases, what we have is one first state of affairs that </span><i>changes</i>
<span style="font-style: normal;">into another state of affairs. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">How
would any of them be any more "quiescent" than the other? </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
seems clear that that cannot be so: in both cases, O just changes
from the first state to the second. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">O
never remains unchanged </span><i>for a while</i> <span style="font-style: normal;">-
which would require time. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
mere uttering of words like "quiescent" or "timeless"
is not a "get out of logic free" card, and should not be
accepted as making a distinction that is not there. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Given
the previous considerations, it seems clear that the "timeless"
claim amounts to trying to make an exception to the premise that
everything that begins to exist, has a cause of its existence, just
by using the word "timeless", but failing to actually
denote any ontological differences...</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">10)
The meaning of "begins to exist"</span></b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">While
the results of the previous sections show that the KCA provides no
support for theism, there are further, independent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">
</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">and
conclusive reasons to reject it. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="appendix1"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">In
the this and the following sections, I will provide sufficient
reasons to conclude that the KCA provides no</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">
</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">support
for theism, even if all of the arguments I gave so far were to be
rejected. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
this section, I will assess the meaning of "begins to exist";
first, l</span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">et's
compare <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#meaningbegins">Craig's hypothesis about the
meanings of "begins to exist" and "comes into being"</a>,
with the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#secondalternative">second alternative reading
</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#secondalternative">considered in section six</a></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">(let's call this
alternative hypothesis "hypothesis 2") <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notehyp2">[14]</a></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>,
</b></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">and
test the two hypothesis to see which one is closer to matching the
meaning of the words. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A.
x begins to exist at [t1,t2] iff there is a finite closed interval
[t1,t2] such that x does not exist at any time prior to t1, and x
exists at t2. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">B.
x comes into being iff there is an </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">event
- </span></span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">that
is, change - from a state of affairs at which x does not exist, to a
state of affairs at which it does. </span></span></span>. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Under
a tensed theory of time, everyday examples will not help us test one
vs. the other, since both hypotheses yield the same results. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
under a tenseless theory of time, the difference is striking: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's
assume a tenseless theory, and let's consider, for instance,
Napoleon. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
seems clear that, even if the past, present and future exist
tenselessly, there is a time at which Napoleon did not exist, and a
later time at which he did. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
it seems to me that he <i>came into being</i><span style="font-style: normal;">,
and </span><i>began to exist. </i><span style="font-style: normal;">That's
in line with hypothesis 2. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">On
the other hand, under Craig's hypothesis, assuming a tenseless theory
of time, </span><i>nothing</i> <span style="font-style: normal;">begins
to exist, and nothing comes into being. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
particular, Napoleon neither came into being, nor began to exist. But
that seems clearly conceptually wrong. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
fact, the questions of whether a tensed theory is true and whether
Napoleon came into being, or began to exist, appear to be orthogonal.
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">It
seems rather odd that Craig would include tense in the definition of
"begins to exist", but he argues that, under a tenseless
theory of time, a universe with a first event did not begin to exist
just as a meter stick does not begin to exist just because it has a
first centimeter.</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage1842"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>[18]</b></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That
argument is odd as well, though: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;">While
a meter stick does not </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>begin to exist</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">
in virtue of having a first </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>centimeter</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">,
that's not relevant, since having a first centimeter is a </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>spatial</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">,
not a </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>temporal</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">
claim, while "begins to exist" - at least, in this context
- is clearly about time, not space. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;">In
fact, the stick in question </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>does</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">
have a </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-style: normal;">beginning</span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">
</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>in space </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-style: normal;">because
it has</span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"> </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-style: normal;">a
first centimeter, and similarly, even if a tenseless theory of 7time
is true, the stick does have a beginning</span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">
</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>in time</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">
</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-style: normal;">as long
as there is, say, a </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>first year
at which it exists. </i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-style: normal;">It
is true that, in order for us to say a year is </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>first</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-style: normal;">,
we need to pick an order in time - from past to future, not the other
way around, but that direction is actually implicitly built-in
hypothesis 2, and in our language about time.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Also,
to say that the stick has a spatial beginning require that one picks
a direction in space to say which centimeter is first - in this case,
explicitly or by context. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A
difference is that, in the case of space, one needs to pick the
direction explicitly or by context, whereas in the case of time, it's
built in the meaning of the words, but that does not appear to be
relevant to the point that there is a beginning. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since
to say that the stick begins to exist - in the sense that's relevant
in the context of the KCA, at least - is the same as to say that the
stick has a temporal beginning, or a beginning in time, then it
follows that the stick does begin to exist, even on a tenseless
theory of time. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Then,
it seems to me that hypothesis 2 gives the right result, whereas
Craig's hypothesis does not. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's
consider a different scenario; scenario S1: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<a href="" name="S1"></a>
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Let
us suppose that there is a t=0, and an entity B that exists at t=0.
Let us suppose that there is no time earlier than t=0. Let's further
suppose that there is no state of the world at which B does not
exist, and the actual world does not contain any timeless states of
affairs whatsoever, or any kind of two-coordinates time, or
undifferentiated time, or any such temporally counterintuitive state
of affairs</span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#timelessnote1"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>[19]</b></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Does
B begin to exist? <br />Does B come into being? </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">According
to Craig's hypothesis, if a tensed theory is time is true, then B
begins to exist and comes into being, whereas if a tenseless theory
of time is true, then B neither begins to exist nor comes into being.
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On
the other hand, according to hypothesis 2, regardless of the tensed
vs. tenseless issue, B does begin to exist, but does not come into
being. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Readers
will use their own intuitive grasp of the words, of course, but mine
tells me that hypothesis 2 gives the right results again: to </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>come
into </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-style: normal;">being
seems to entail that there is a state at which the entity in question
does not exist, followed by one in which it does, whereas to </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>begin
</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-style: normal;">to
exist seems to indicate an initial time or moment of existence. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
don't know whether hypothesis 2 is entirely accurate, but it does
seem to be much closer to capturing the meaning of the words than
Craig's hypothesis is. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="hypothesis3"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Another alternative
(say, hypothesis 3) would be just like hypothesis 2 but allowing open
and semi-open finite intervals. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Hypotheses
2 and 3 given the same verdict in daily cases, under either a tensed
or a tenseless theory of time, but there would be a difference in,
say open models of the universe with a metric-finite past, assuming
an intrinsic metric. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
any case, both alternatives seem to fare much better than Craig's
hypothesis, at least in all the cases tested above - in which both
alternatives 2 and 3 seem to give the right results. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="Appendix2"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>11)
The first premise </b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's
turn now to the question of whether there are good grounds for
believing that everything that begins to exist has a cause. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">William
Lane Craig maintains that the first premise, namely the claim that
everything that begins to exist has a cause, is intuitively clear. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Moreover,
he claims that there is empirical confirmation of that. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">He
tries to back up that claim by appealing to our intuitions about
causation - what he calls "metaphysical" intuitions -, and
by bringing up scenarios that purportedly show the absurdity of
denying it, such as, say, horses popping into existence uncaused.
</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage182"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">[20]</span></b></span></span></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">However,
all of those scenarios would also be a case of denying <i>other</i>
candidates to being intuitive principles, such as the claim that
every <i>event/change</i> of the form "B comes into existence"
- or, more generally, every <i>event/change</i> - has a cause. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">In
other words, someone may not accept that everything that begins to
exist has a cause (they don't need to actually deny that everything
that begins has a cause, but simply not affirm it), while accepting
that, for instance, every <i>event/change</i> has a cause; that's
also debatable, but the point is that it's an alternative that avoids
any of the issues raised by Craig, and - at least to me - it seems
more intuitive. That does not mean that one ought to assume that only
events/changes have causes, of course, but that's beside the point. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">The
point is that this is an intuitive alternative (though still
debatable), and that n<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-style: normal;">one
of the scenarios that Craig brings up - like a horse coming into
existence uncaused - would present any problem for that position,
since that position holds that those </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>events/changes
</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-style: normal;">would
not happen without a cause. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">In
any case, a question is: would belief that everything that begins to
exist has a cause be warranted? </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Another
one is: is lack of belief in that claim, unreasonable? </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Using
Craig's definition of "begins to exist", the issue of
"timelessness" alone is a serious problem: without a good
understanding of what that means, plus good reasons to adopt it,
there appears to be no justification for believing that kind of
principle, even if we assume that the claim is coherent - <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection">which
</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection">we don't have sufficient reasons to
believe. </a></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
other words, one <i>ought not to believe it,</i><span style="font-style: normal;">even
if the assumption that "timeless" (in Craig's usage) is
coherent, were justified. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Moreover,
even if we leave the issue of timelessness aside, there appears to be
no good reason, either intuitive or empirical, to believe that
everything that begins to exist has a cause, either in the sense of
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#appendix1">hypothesis 2 </a>, or <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#hypothesis3">hypothesis
3</a>, or Craig's hypothesis about the meaning - minus the "timeless"
condition. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Still,
there is no need to settle the matter of what "begins to exist"
mean. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">We
can just leave that undefined. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Still,
the question is whether there is support for the claim that anything
has a temporal beginning has a cause - which is what the KCA claims,
after all. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">While
it's true that, <span style="font-style: normal;">in daily life</span><i>,</i>
anything that has a temporal beginning seems to have causes, in daily
life it's also the case that every event/change seems to have causes,
and what is intuitive is may well be that every event - i.e., every
<span style="font-style: normal;">change</span> - has a cause. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
two questions are: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Do
we have sufficient reasons for believing not only that every event
has a cause, but that everything that has a temporal beginning <span style="font-style: normal;">even
when no change is involved</span><i>, </i><span style="font-style: normal;">has
a cause? </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
other words, do we have sufficient reasons for believing that every X
that begins to exist has a cause, even when there is no change</span>
<span style="font-style: normal;">from a state of affairs at which the
X in question does not exist, to a state at which it does? </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Do
we have an epistemic obligation to believe that everything that has a
temporal beginning even when no change is involved</span><i>, </i><span style="font-style: normal;">has
a cause?</span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
order to assess our intuitions on the matter, we would need to
consider unusual scenarios, such as <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#S1">S1</a>.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
have to say that I don't have any general intuition that, in such
scenario, B would have a cause. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
fact, in some scenarios, my intuitions tell me otherwise: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">For
instance, in <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#S1">S1</a>, let us stipulate that B is the
universe, or a multiverse, and there is nothing else that exists. Or
let's stipulate that B is an omnipotent being, and let's stipulate
that, at t=0, there are no other beings. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
those cases, intuitively, I'd say that B begins to exist but may well
not have a cause. At least, I have no intuition that B would have a
cause. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Someone
might protest that I'm constructing scenarios that would be
exceptions to the principle, but the scenarios in question are
counterintuitive and we shouldn't use them as a guide. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
in order to construct scenarios in which one could test whether one
has an intuition that every X that begins to exist has a cause,
independently of whether there is an change/event "X comes into
existence", it seems to me one needs precisely to separate
beginning of existence from changes/events - which does not happen in
ordinary cases. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Otherwise,
it could be that what's intuitive to us is just the principle that
every event - that is, any <i>change</i> - has a cause, and the
correlation with a beginning arises because it just happens to be the
case than, in daily life, things that begin to exist are just those X
for which there is an change/event "X comes into existence"
- i.e., a change from a state of affairs at which X does not exist,
to one at which it does. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Of
course, a potentially serious problem may be the reliability of our
intuitions in such cases, but that's no help for someone claiming
that the principle ought to be accepted, or even merely that it's
rational to do so. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
order to accept something like "everything that begins to exist,
has a cause" as intuitive, one would not only have to lack an
intuition that, in some scenarios, some beings that begin to exist
would probably </span><i>not </i><span style="font-style: normal;">have
causes: one would have to have an intuition that those beings </span><i>would
</i><span style="font-style: normal;">have causes. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">A
possible alternative line of arguing, in support of claim that
everything that begins to exist has a cause, would be to say that if
X begins to exist, then it's clear - either intuitively or
empirically - that there is an change/event</span> <span style="font-style: normal;">"X
comes into being" - i.e., a change from a state of affairs at
which X does not exist, to one at which it does. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">However,</span>
<span style="font-style: normal;">there appears to be no intuitive
reason to think that that's </span><i>always </i><span style="font-style: normal;">the
case. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
fact, if time had a beginning (which can't be ruled out on intuitions
alone), it seems more than intuitively clear that there is no event
"time comes into existence": a change from a state of
affairs at which there is no time, to one at which there is time,
seems to be impossible, for reasons <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">similar
to </a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">those used to derived a
contradiction earlier. </a></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
for empirical reasons, someone might try to use objects in daily life
as examples, and claim that everything that begins to exist, also
comes into existence. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
using objects in daily life as examples might as well be used to
claim that no object is timeless, or that all persons came into
existence, etc., so this avenue does not seem promising for the
theist, either - in any case, they'd have to make their case. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
it seems that we're not justified in believing that every X that
begins to exist comes from an event "X begins to exist" -
let alone not justified in not believing it -, or that everything
that has a temporal beginning, has a cause. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It's
true that someone might have different intuitions on the subject, so
that might depend on the person - assuming that we consider those
particular intuitions reliable. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Finally,
someone might raise the issue that cosmologists who worked on the Big
Bang model did not come to the conclusion that they had resolved all
the mysteries and moved on, instead of looking for causes. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
it's clear that the model does <i>not </i>provide an understanding of
the universe beyond a certain point, where effects from forces other
than gravity should be taken into consideration. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
other words, it makes perfect sense that scientists would try to
figure out the causes of a very hot, dense, and small universe that
existed about 13.7 billion years: indeed, we don't know the causes; a
theory that only considers gravity but no other forces is inadequate
to provide a good understanding of it. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
those scientists seem to be asking the question: "where did that
hot, dense, really small universe come from?" (or similar ones),
on the understanding that <i>before</i> the first state of the
universe that can be analyzed with present-day models, there were
other states that are beyond the descriptive capabilities of current
scientific understanding - states that later <i>changed </i>into a
state that is within said capabilities. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In
other words, they apparently were/are looking for the causes of an
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>event,
</i></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">as
well as for a model of how the universe works under conditions not
covered by present-day models.</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notecauses"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>[21]</b></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="appendix2"></a><a href="" name="Appendix3"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">12)
The "Hilbert Hotel" argument</span></b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">One
of the arguments that Craig gives in support of the second premise of
the Kalam Cosmological Argument intends to establish that an actual
infinity is metaphysically impossible - though there is no claim of
logical impossibility. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's
assess Craig's argument: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>William
Lane Craig and J.P Sinclair<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#hotelquote1">[22]</a>:</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and
suppose once more that all the rooms are occupied. There is not a
single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose
a new guest shows up, asking for a room. “But of course!”
says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1
into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room
#3 into room #4, and so on out to infinity. As a result of these room
changes, room #1 now becomes vacant, and the new guest gratefully
checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were
occupied! Equally curious, there are now no more persons in the hotel
than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this
be? The proprietor just added the new guest’s name to the
register and gave him his keys – how can there not be one more
person in the hotel than before?</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Such questions are
the result of an ambiguity about what it means for there to be “more
persons” in the hotel. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">For
instance, if by “more persons” one means “all the
persons who were there remain, and there is at least one who wasn't
there, but now is there”, or if one means that the set of
guests after the new arrival (let's call it “</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>GF1</b></span></span></span>”<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">)
minus the set of guests before the new arrival (let's call it “</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>GI</b></span></span></span>”<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">),
has a greater cardinality than </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>GI</b></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">minus
</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>GF1</b></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#minusset">[23]</a>,
</b></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">then
are are more persons (more precisely, one more) after the new guest
checks in. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">On
the other hand, the set of guests in the beginning </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>GI</b></span>
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">has
the same cardinality as the set of guests after a new guest arrives,
</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>GF1</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
so if by "</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>GF1
</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">has
more persons than </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>GI</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">"
one means that the cardinality of </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>GF1
</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
greater than that of </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>G1</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
then there are no more persons after the arrival. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">That
the sets have the same cardinality only means that there is a
bijection between the two sets, which is not only not
counterintuitive, but is actually </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">obvious</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">:</span></span>
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">it's
the same as comparing the set of natural numbers </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N
</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(i.e.,
{1, 2, 3, …}), with the set of non-negative integers </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N</b></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>0
</b></span></sub>(i.e., {0, 1, 2, 3,...}). </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
in the usual mathematical sense of cardinality, <b>N</b> and <span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N</b></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>0</b></span></sub>
have the same number of elements, but that only means there is a
bijection between the two (which is, again, obvious, since we can
define F: <span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N</b></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>0
</b></span></sub>→ <span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
F(k) = (k+1)). </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">On
the other hand, there is one number in </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N</b></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>0
</b></span></sub>that is not in <span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N
</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(namely,
0), so in that sense, there is one more element – also, the
cardinality of </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N</b></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>0
</b></span></sub><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">minus</span></span>
<span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N </b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
1, which is greater than the cardinality of </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N
</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">minus
</span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N</b></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>0</b></span></sub><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
which is zero. So, understanding “more elements” in
either of those senses, it is the case that </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N</b></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>0
</b></span></sub>has more elements than <b>N</b> (one more, to be
precise). </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The case of the
hotel is no different in that regard; making the example concrete
does not change the fact that any puzzlement arises from the
ambiguity about what's meant by “same number”: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
the same sense of “same number” in which </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N</b></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>0
</b></span></sub>has the same number of elements as <b>N</b> -
<span style="font-weight: normal;">namely, in the sense that there is
a bijection between the two-, the sets of guests after and before the
arrival have the same number of guests. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">And
in the two senses I mentioned above in which </span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>N</b></span><sub><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>0
</b></span></sub>has one more element than <b>N</b><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">there
is one more guest after the new guest arrived. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">If
the example shows something counterintuitive, that's not the actual
infinity, but the infinite </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">hotel
- </span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">which
of course we could never build - the practical impossibility of
communicating with infinitely many people at once, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But that does not
appear to be a problem for, say, infinitely many galaxies, or
infinitely many universes (in some sense of “universe”
used in modern cosmology), infinitely many particles, etc. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So, if one explains
what one means by "more", then there is no problem
whatsoever, regardless of whether there is a unique usual meaning of
"more", according to which there are (or there aren't) more
persons after the arrival. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I actually doubt
that only one common meaning of "more" exists, but that is
beside the point. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The point is that
there simply appears to be nothing remotely puzzling here, but merely
a confusion that arises from some ambiguity in what is meant by
"more". </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The rest of the
arguments against an actual infinity are based on that ambiguity as
well. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">For
instance, Craig expresses some sort of amazement at the alleged
strangeness that even if (denumerably) </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">infinitely
</span></i></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">many
more guests arrive, the number of guests is the same as before.</span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#hotelquote1"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>[22]</b></span></span></span></a>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
in the previous case, there is no puzzlement at all if what's meant
be "same number" is explained: </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
set of guests after the infinitely many (more precisely, <span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><b>0</b></sub></span>)
new guests arrive (let's call it <b>GF</b><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><b>0
</b></sub></span>) has all the members of the initial set of guests
<b>GI</b>, and it also has infinitely many guests that <b>GI</b> does
not have. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Also,
<b>GF</b><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><b>0
</b></sub></span>minus <b>GI</b> has infinitely many guests or
members, whereas <b>GI</b> minus <b>GF</b><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><b>0
</b></sub></span>has zero. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On
the other hand, there is a bijection between <b>GI</b> and <b>GF</b><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><b>0</b></sub></span>.
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">All
that is clear, and there is no puzzlement. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
question "Are there any more guests?" is not be problematic
once one explains what's meant by "more guests". </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">It
would be somewhat ambiguous to say that there would never be a single
person more in the hotel than before, as Craig does</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#hotelquote1">[22</a>]</b></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
but as before, once one clarifies what one is saying, the puzzlement
should disappear: in the usual mathematical sense of cardinality,
there are no more persons, which is to say nothing but that there is
a bijection between the set of guests before the new infinite ones
arrive, and the set of guests after they do arrive. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In the two other
senses I mentioned above, there are more people after the arrival. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">All
of this is straightforward, so there should be no need to delve any
further into it: Craig's </span></span>"Hilbert Hotel"
argument provides no good reason to reach any conclusion about
whether actual infinities exist, or whether or not they're
"metaphysically possible", since it is just the result of
terminological ambiguity and the resulting confusion. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="philosiphicalinfinity"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>13)
Philosophical arguments against an infinite past</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
addition to the </span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#appendix2">Hilbert
Hotel argument</a><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">against
an actual infinity, Craig presents other philosophical arguments
against an infinite past on a tensed theory of time </span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">-
not against all actual infinities. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Before
I go on, I have to admit that an infinite past on a tensed theory of
time appears counterintuitive to me. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
on the other hand, so does a beginning of time! </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Counterintuitiveness
aside, the question is whether there are any good reasons to believe
that, on a tensed theory of time, an infinite past is indeed
impossible. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I
used to think that there were - though not for the same reasons as
Craig -, but after further consideration, reading counterarguments,
and so on, I have to admit I can't find such reasons. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">To
be clear, I agree that it's impossible, on a tensed theory of time,
to have an infinite past </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">if
there is a first event/change. </span></i></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Indeed,
if a tensed theory of time is true and there is a first event/change,
then there is no infinite chain of events, one after the other, since
it's impossible to reach an infinity by a finite number of instances
of finite addition. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Moreover,
that is true regardless of whether the events are of equal duration -
assuming an intrinsic metric of time; else, how close they are is a
conventional matter. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">One
objection raised against that argument is that it resembles Zeno's
paradoxes.</span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notezeno">[24]</a></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Craig's
reply to that objection is based on a claim that there are two
crucial differences: the events are of equal duration and actual in
his argument whereas the intervals are potential and unequal in
Zeno's paradoxes. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
I explained above, the length of the intervals is actually not
relevant. However, that does not seem to work against Craig's
argument in this case: Whatever the solution to Zeno's paradoxes is,
the fact remains that one cannot possibly form an infinity by
finitely adding the number one, or any finite numbers. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Still,
whether or not the arguments resemble Zeno's paradoxes in some way is
not the point here. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Rather,
the point here is whether we have good reasons to believe that an
infinite past is impossible on a tensed theory of time. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
will argue that at least Craig provides no such good reason. If there
is any, it should be found elsewhere.</span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notefailure">[25]</a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="Shandy"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>13.1)
The contradictory case of Tristram Shandy</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">One
of Craig's arguments against an infinite past is based on the story
of Tristram Shandy. </span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#noteshandy1">[26]</a></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Shandy
is a man who writes his autobiography, at a rather slow pace: it
takes Shandy a year to write the events of a single day. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">According
to Craig, if Shandy had been writing from infinity, that would lead
to absurdities, and so - as Craig argument goes - we should reject an
infinite past because it's obviously coherent to write an
autobiography at that pace. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">However,
Craig does not provide any good reason to believe that it's obviously
coherent - or, indeed, coherent - to write an autobiography at that
rate </span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">counting
from infinity. </span></i></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">What
is obviously coherent is to write such an autobiography </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">starting
at a specific day. </span></i></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Moreover,
there is a good reason why Craig does not provide any good reasons to
believe that it's coherent to write an autobiography at that rate
while having kept that pace 'from infinity': namely, such a deed is
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">logically
impossible - </span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">a
fact that, to my knowledge, was first pointed out by an anonymous
poster who goes by the name "Dante Alighieri". </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">To
see why this is impossible, let's suppose otherwise, let's suppose
the number of past years has the order type of the non-positive
integers, and let's enumerate the past years in the following way:
</span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#noteleap">[27]</a></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Last
year is 0, the previous year is -1, and so on. For instance, if this
year is 2012, then 2011 is 0, 2010 is -1, 2009 is -2, and so on. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Now,
let F be a function from the set of non-positive integers into itself
such that for all non-negative integers </span></span><span style="color: black;"><b>r</b></span><span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and </span></span><span style="color: black;"><b>n</b></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
F(</span></span><span style="color: black;"><b>-r) = -n </b></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">if
and only if -</span></span><span style="color: black;"><b>n</b></span><span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is the
most recent year Shandy wrote about during the year -</span></span><span style="color: black;"><b>r</b></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">For
instance, if, in the year -2000, Shandy wrote about a day in the year
-300001 and about a day in the year -300000, then F(-2000) = -300000.
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Given
the rate at which Shandy writes, and given also that, when writing
his autobiography, Shandy never writes about his future, we have the
following conditions: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>1)
F(-r) ≤ -r. </b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>2)
F(-r-365) = F(-r) - 1. </b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">By
induction: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>3)
F(-r-2*365) = F(-r-365-365) = F(-r-365) - 1=F(-r) - 2</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><b>4)
F(-r-k*365) = F(-r) - k, </b></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">for
all non-negative </span></span><span style="color: black;"><b>k</b></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So,
in particular, taking </span></span><span style="color: black;"><b>r=0. </b></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>F(-k*365)
= F(0) - k ≤ -k*365. </b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">Hence,
for every natural number </span><span style="color: black;"><b>k</b></span><span style="color: black;">,
</span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><b>5)
364*k </b></span><span style="color: black;">≤ </span><span style="color: black;"><b>-F(0)</b></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">That's
contradictory, as easily seen by taking (for instance) </span><span style="color: black;"><b>k
= 1 + (F(0)*F(0)). </b></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
the Tristram Shandy scenario fails to show that infinitely many past
years are impossible. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Someone
might suggest that precisely the fact that we reach a contradiction
is what should lead us to the rejection of such an infinite past.
However, that would be a confusion, as it should be clear from the
previous proof: what's logically impossible is the scenario itself,
and it's not surprising that absurdities follow from a contradiction,
since <i>everything</i> follows from a contradiction. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">Still,
while the proof above </span><span style="color: black;"><i>should be
</i></span><span style="color: black;">enough to debunk the Tristram Shandy
scenario, in case someone is not persuaded by it, let me point out
that the proof in question does not depend on whether a tensed or a
tenseless theory of time is true. But an infinite past seems clearly
logically possible if we assume a tenseless theory of time, just as
an infinite future is. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">Also,
somebody might suggest that there might be even </span><span style="color: black;"><i>more
</i></span><span style="color: black;">past years, changing order types,
etc. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
that would be beside the point: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">The
point here is that the previous proof shows that if the set of past
years is of the same order type as the set of non-negative integers,
the Tristram Shandy case is </span><span style="color: black;"><i>logically
impossible. </i></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Therefore,
the Tristram Shandy scenario fails to present any challenge to the
possibility of an infinite past in which the set of past years has
the same order type as the set of non-negative integers, and so it
fails to show that infinitely many past years are impossible. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="orbitsparity"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>13.2)
Orbits and parity</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: transparent; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Another
one of Craig's arguments against an infinite past on a tensed theory
of time is based on a scenario involving planets completing
infinitely many orbits. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">First,
he claims that somehow it's absurd that if Jupiter completes 2.5
orbits for each one Saturn completes, they would both have completed
the same number, if they have been orbiting the Sun 'from eternity
past'. That would be somehow a "magical" result</span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage120">[28]</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now,
apart from the fact that any planet, star, etc., has a finite
expiration date, the fact is that there is no absurdity at all. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">As
in the case of the </span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#appendix2">Hilbert
Hotel argument</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
this is merely a confusion with words. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That
the number of orbits is the same if they've been orbiting forever and
there is an infinite past merely means that there is a bijection
between the set of orbits completed by one of the planets, and the
same set for the other planet. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Of
course, again in reality </span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">planets
</span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">don't
last for that long, but that is not at all relevant. </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Indeed,
no one is suggesting that </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">planets</span></i></span><span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">might
do that: we know enough about physics to tell otherwise. </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Incidentally,
in any case, the number of orbits completed </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">from
any given time </span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">would
be finite, and there would be nothing like Jupiter falling
"infinitely far behind Saturn", or that the "disparity"
has become increasingly greater </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">from
infinite</span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
etc.: again, there is no beginning from which to count to infinity. </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>William
Lane Craig:</b></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage120"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">[28]</span></span></span></span></a></div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">For
a cardinal number </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">n
</span></i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
even if there is a unique cardinal number </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">m
</span></i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">such
that </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">n
</span></i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">=
2</span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">m</span></i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
and </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">n
</span></i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
odd if there is a unique cardinal number </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">m
</span></i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">such
that </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">n
</span></i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">=
2</span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">m
</span></i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">+
1. In the envisioned scenario, the number of completed orbits is (in
both cases!) ℵ0, and ℵ0 = 2ℵ0 = 2ℵ0 +
1.</span></span><span style="color: black;"> </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Actually,
using usual mathematical definitions of “even” and “odd”
– and those definitions match common usage of the words -,
</span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">integers</span></i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">
</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">are
even or odd, but not transfinite cardinals.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;">So,
using the words in their usual sense, ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><b>0</b></sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub>
</sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;">is neither odd nor even. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Also,
that </span></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>0</b></span></span></sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub>
</sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">=
2</span></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>0</b></span></span></sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub>
</sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">+
1 only means that there is a bijection between </span></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>0</b></span></span></sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub>
</sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">and
(</span></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>0</b></span></span></sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub>
</sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">x
{0, 1} </span></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>U</b></span></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">
</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">{1}),
and that </span></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>0</b></span></span></sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub>
</sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">=
2</span></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>0</b></span></span></sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub>
</sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">only
means that if there is a bijection between </span></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>0</b></span></span></sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub>
</sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">and
(</span></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>0</b></span></span></sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub>
</sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">x
{0, 1}). But that's all true </span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notecardinal">[29].
</a>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-size: small;">Surely,
going by the definition Craig provides, </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">ℵ</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub><span style="font-size: small;"><b>0</b></span></sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><sub>
</sub></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-size: small;">would be both odd and
even, and so would be any other transfinite cardinal, but that is not
at all a problem</span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>,
</i></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">as
long as one keeps in mind what Craig means by the words. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="shbbm"></a><a href="" name="Appendix4"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">14)
The "Standard Hot Big Bang Model", a tensed theory of time,
and the KCA: </span></b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Craig claims that
what he calls the "Standard Hot Big Bang Model" (SHBBM),
supports the second premise of the KCA. He also claims that a tensed
theory of time is true. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>W.
L. Craig and J. P. Sinclair<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#standardbigbangnote">[30]</a></b></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
standard Hot Big Bang model, as the Friedmann–Lemaître
model came to be called</span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><b>, t</b></span><span style="color: #231f20;">hus
describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came
into being a finite time ago. Moreover – and this deserves
underscoring – the origin it posits is an absolute origin </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>ex
nihilo</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">. For not only all matter and
energy but also space and time themselves come into being at the
initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, “At
this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally
nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe
originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>ex
nihilo</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">” (Barrow and Tipler
1986, p. 442). On such a model the universe originates </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>ex
nihilo </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">in the sense that it is false
that something existed prior to the singularity</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>.</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;">There
is no good reason to think that we can assume the model to be an
accurate description of the universe beyond a point at which there
was a hot, dense and very small universe - but </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>not
</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">- a singularity of infinite density
(what would that even mean?). </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Moreover,
there is no need to add a singular point, even if one keeps
extrapolating backwards in time, nor a way of getting out of the
singularity, so to speak. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
let's let all that pass, and let's assume, for the sake of the
argument, that the model Craig offers in support of his arguments is
indeed an accurate portrayal of the early universe. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Then,
under such assumption: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">1)
There is a time t(1) in the past, such that the average density d(1)
of the universe at t(1) was greater than the density at a time in the
year 2000 (any time) d(0), so there is a change from a universe with
a density d(1) to a universe with a density d(0). </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Thus,
the model entails that there is at least one event/change, E(1),
which happens in semiopen interval [t(1), t(0))</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">2)
Let's suppose the model entails there are at least k events, E(1),
E(2), E(k), where E(j) happens in the semi-open interval [t(j+1),
t(j)), and 0 < t(j+1) < t(j), for all j between 1 and k. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
average density of the universe from E(k+1) began to the present day,
is bounded, and so is less than some number d(M). </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since
the model predicts that the density <i>tends</i> to infinity as we
move back in time, there is some time t(k+2), such that 0 < t(k+2)
< t(k+1), and such that d((k+2)) > d(M). </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
there is a change from a state of the universe with density d((k+2)
to a state of density d, such that d(M) > d > d(k+1), and
that's the event E((k+1)), which happens in the interval [t(k+2),
t(k+1))</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Thus,
on this model, there is an infinite temporal regress of events<i>,
</i>which Craig claims is impossible<i>.</i> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Note
that even if the events are increasingly shorter, that would be an
actual infinity under a tenseless theory of time, or under a
growing-block tensed theory. <br />Craig claims that even on
presentism, an infinite regress of events/changes is an actual
infinity. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
so, then Craig's "Hilbert Hotel" argument has a false
conclusion.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Furthermore,
according to Craig, this model entails that time has a beginning at
the singularity. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
so, we could then conclude, on the assumption of this model, that the
universe contains an infinite regress of events with a beginning
point, and so no tensed theory of time is true: even though the
duration of the events is not equal, and even though the sum of all
of the durations is convergent, the fact remains that it's not
possible to get an actual infinity of events by finitely many times
adding a finite number of them (in reality, the model offers no way
out of this "singularity", and adding it is at best
superfluous; without that addition, what we get is a beginningless
series of past events/changes, but that's no better for Craig's
position). </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
what if we drop the assumption that we can extrapolate arbitrarily
back in time, and actually take into consideration the fact that
we're not justified in applying General Relativity to a very small
universe, where forces other than gravity should be taken into
consideration? </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
that case, all we could say is that the universe was in a hot, small,
dense state S1 at some time t over 13 billion years ago, which seems
to have came <i>after </i>a state S2 whose description is beyond
present-day understanding of physics.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
the state S2, and the <i>event </i>E(S2,S1): = "The universe
changes from its condition at S2 to its condition at S1" are
both beyond the present-day understanding of physics. And <i>that is
it</i>: There is no suggestion of a beginning of time, or of the
universe, or anything of the sort. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There
is a beginning <i>of</i> <i>the states of the universe whose
description is within the present-day understanding of physics. </i>Of
course, that fact provides no support whatsoever for the second
premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and thus neither does the
"Standard Hot Big Bang Model". </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="assumingcause"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>15)
The (purported) a cause of the universe: further analysis</b></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Given
that </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#Appendix2">there
seems to be no sufficient reason to accept the first premise of the
KCA</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
then it seems the argument failed. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Still,
assuming that the universe had a beginning and a cause, earlier in
this article, I've analyzed some of the consequences of the
properties assigned by William Lane Craig to the cause of the
universe, showing that </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">a
contradiction is entailed</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
also assessed</span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection"><span style="color: black;">
</span></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Craig's
reply to that contention</b></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
showing that it's inadequate. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
this section, though, I will let assess mostly other arguments in
which Craig uses conceptual analysis in order to support of some of
the claims about the properties of the cause of the universe, whose
existence is allegedly established by Kalam Cosmological Argument.
</span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#noteconceptual">[31]</a><span style="color: blue;">
</span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="firstcause"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>15.1)
A single first cause? </b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Before
addressing the conceptual claims, I will assess a different one: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">According
to Craig, the philosophical arguments in in the KCA show that there
is a first cause, not only a cause of the universe. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
addition, he claims we ought to posit a single cause, not many,
allegedly due to Occam's razor. </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage192">[17]</a><span style="color: black;">
</span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Even
assuming that the KCA succeeded in establishing both a cause of the
universe and a first cause, that would not be a proper use of the
razor: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">First,
if we do not know what caused a hot, dense state of the universe that
existed about 13.7 billion years ago, there is no warrant for
believing that it had a single cause, or that that particular cause
was in turn uncaused. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Cosmologists
understand that, and keep trying to find better models - models that
can describe the early universe as well -, rather than assuming that
the hot, dense, early universe was just brought up by a single
uncaused cause, so science can go on. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Second,
even if we knew that something caused the universe, multiverse, etc.
- i.e., that there is a previous cause that does not match, for some
reason, any description used by physics, today or in the future -,
and even if we knew that there is some uncaused cause, there would
appear to be no reason to make any assumptions about the number of
causes of the universe/multiverse, etc., or that said cause or causes
are uncaused. Who knows? </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Still,
let's leave that aside for the sake of the argument, and assess the
rest of Craig's arguments for the properties of the cause of the
universe, assuming that said cause would also be the first cause. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="changelessness"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>15.2)
Changelessness and immateriality </b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Craig
maintains that the first cause must be "changeless", since
an infinite regress of changes cannot exist. </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage192">[17]</a><span style="color: black;">
</span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
if so, then the only thing one can infer from that is that there has
to be a first change. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
that is not a problem for even particles: as long as there is a state
and no <i>previous </i>state (hence, no previous change), or for some
kind of field before particles form, etc.; all of that would be
"changeless" in the sense that, well, there is no previous
change. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">However
- assuming for now that Craig's claim of changelessness is meaningful
-, Craig seems to mean a lot more than the lack of previous changes
by "changeless", since he claims that the first cause
exists in a state of "absolute changelessness", which </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage192">[17]</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
which is allegedly impossible for particles and the like. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
then, in that case, <i>changelessness does not follow from a lack of
infinitely many past changes, </i>and he incurs a non-sequitur. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
any event, the point is that no infinite regress of changes only
entails a first change, not a "changeless" state in
whatever sense Craig of "changeless" Craig intends to use
the word. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Moreover,
if the first cause were God, he would change from not knowing any
tensed truths (for instance), to knowing some tensed truths. That's a
change. <br />Furthermore, as particles, fields, etc., change, God's
knowledge of them would, so he would be changing constantly as well. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">And
if there is a first state in which there are no particles, fields,
etc., God would still <i>change </i>from that state to the next
state, just as any field, etc., in a first state would change from
that state to the next. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">On
that note, let's consider the two </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios">scenarios</a><span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
introduced earlier: once again, the first cause </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">changes,
just as an object at t=0 would change. </span></i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
the claim appears to be either contradictory, or meaningless.</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Now,
Craig claims is that the first cause is changeless "sans the
universe". </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage192">[17]</a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
once again: what does that even mean? </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
the usual sense of the words, one would understand that an object is
changeless if it does not change <i>as times goes by. </i>But if
there is no time, what does that mean? </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
any event, the object of course would change, </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios">as
the previous scenarios illustrate</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So,
in addition to the claim that God is timeless sans creation, and
temporal with creation - which is </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">contradictory</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection">if
meaningful at all</a><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">-
Craig adds another mysterious claim - to say the least -, namely that
God is changeless sans the universe. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
addition, as I pointed out, Craig claims that, since it's changeless,
the first cause is also immaterial. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Leaving
aside potential problems with the concept of "immaterial",
clearly the conclusion is not warranted, as the claim that the cause
is changeless is not warranted, either. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="timelessnessa"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>15.3)
Timelessness, once again</b></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
</span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">earlier</a><span style="color: black;">
</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection">sections,</a><span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#contradiction">already</a> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#timelesschange">made</a>
a case against the claim of timelessness of God as the first cause. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
this subsection, I will briefly recap some of the reasons I've
already given, and then stress the point that even leaving aside any
considerations of durations of the events/changes like 'God changes
from not knowing any tensed facts, to knowing at least one tensed
fact' - or similar ones -, the claim that God is timeless sans
creation but temporal with it is untenable; in this subsection, I
will also consider other potential objections, such as simultaneous
causation and 'timeless will'. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">According
to Craig, time cannot exist in the absolute absence of all events -
in other words, in the absolute absence of all changes -, and so the
first cause must be timeless. </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage192">[17]</a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">However,
as I explained earlier, this purported first cause would </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios">change
<i>exactly</i> as an object at t=0 would</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Also,
Craig claims that time has a beginning, so the cause of time must be
timeless. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But
that only </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">highlights</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
problems I just mentioned: for any change/event 'time comes into
existence' would take </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">time,
</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
so there would be time before the beginning of time, which is
impossible. And if the event/change were instantaneous, still a
contradiction would follow, for similar reasons <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#contradiction">as
I argued before. </a></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Using
the word 'timeless' does not avoid that problem: rather, it's just </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios">a
misuse of the word "timeless" to describe what is not
ontologically different, making in practice an exception to the claim
that </a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios">everything that begins to exist, has a
cause</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Someone
might raise the issues of simultaneous causation, or a 'timeless
will' (whatever that is), but that would not block my objections: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">First,
in the case of the duration of the events/changes, the issues of
simultaneous causation and a 'timeless will' are orthogonal to the
matter at hand, since a </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">contradiction</a><span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">can
be derived on other grounds, without making any assumptions about
them. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Second,
leaving the duration of the events/changes aside, let's consider
again the following scenarios, </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ordering
the states of the world in terms of the direction given by supporters
of the KCA - i.e., the world changes from one state to the next: </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="scenarios34"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Scenario
3: </b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>First
state of the world. </i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Timeless
state S. The only object is God, who timelessly wills to create the
universe. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">God
exists uncaused. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Second
state of the world. </i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Temporal
state at t=0. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
only objects are God and the universe - including, of course, all the
objects in the universe. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">God
is the cause of the existence of the universe. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="scenario4"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Scenario
4: </b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>First
state of the world. </i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Temporal
state t=0. The only object is God, wills to create the universe. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">God
exists uncaused. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Second
state of the world. </i></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Temporal
state t=r>0. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
only objects are God and the universe - including, of course, all the
objects in the universe. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">God
is the cause of the existence of the universe. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">It
is clear that scenario 4 would contradict a claim that everything
that begins to exist has a cause, at least under common readings of
"begins to exist", and under </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#meaningbegins">Craig's</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So,
under those readings, scenario 4 would contradict the first premise
of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In addition, if there is a claim
that all causation is simultaneous, then scenario 4 would contradict
that as well.</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">However,
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">leaving
all of that aside, a more direct and obvious problem is that </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios34"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">scenario
3</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
ontologically the same as scenario 4. </span></i></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
fact, it's not the case that state S in </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios34">scenario
3</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"> </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
a state of absolute changelessness, whereas the temporal state at t=0
in </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenario4">scenario
4</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">somehow
changes </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">immediately</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
for in both cases, the state changes to the next, and in both cases,
there is no lapse of time during which a state remains unchanged. </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
in both cases, there is an entity - namely, God - who exists at the
first state of the world, and has a will at that state. God creates
the universe, and changes - coming to know that the universe exists,
for instance -, and that is the case under both descriptions. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
other words, in </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios34">scenario
3</a>, the word </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">"timeless"
is used, and it's not used in </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenario4">scenario
4</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">However,
this so-called 'timeless' state of God also changes, and in fact
plays </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">exactly
the same role</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">that
the temporal state at t=0 plays in </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenario4"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">scenario
4</span></span></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">:
</span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So,
the word "timeless" is actually </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">mis</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">used,
since there is a false claim that time only starts at the second
state of the world; </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenario4">scenario
4</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"> </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
the same as </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios34">scenario
3</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
but without making false claims of timelessness. </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Of
course, the same problem arises if one changes the description of the
timeless state in some way - e.g., altering the description of the
"timeless will", etc., since for the same reasons, there is
no ontological difference between the two modified </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios34">scenarios</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">-
just a misuse of the word "timeless" in one case. </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>15.4)
Spacelessness</b></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"> </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="spacelessness"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
property of spacelessness allegedly follows from timelessness and
immateriality. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since
the claim of timelessness is untenable, this conclusion fails. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
let's leave that aside for the moment and for the sake of the
argument, and assume that the timelessness claim makes sense. Then,
why can't, say, a multidimensional manifold be timeless? Why some
sort of field? </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">There
is no need for particles, for instance. <br />Note that it wouldn't
help to say that any field would "</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">immediately"
</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">change</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">make
particles, etc., since with the same criterion, any "timeless"
object also "immediately" changes, </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios">as
the previous</a> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios34">scenarios</a> show.
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">And
if a field or something like that can be timeless, but can't be
immaterial, then timelessness does not entail immateriality, anyway
(of course, if the so-called "timeless" object were to
change and exist temporally at t=0, that would also entail a
contradiction, but only as it does in the case of God). </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="power"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>15.5)
Power</b></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">According
to Craig, the first cause must be very powerful, since it caused all
of "physical reality" to exist, without any material cause.
</span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage192">[17]</a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Leaving
aside issues about the concepts of "material", and
"physical", and of course the decisive coherence objections
I explained earlier, the claim that the object in question is very
powerful does not follow from that. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
other words, given the assumption that some entity is the first cause
of the universe, it might be - purely for example - that the object
in question is only capable of causing things like our universe, and
is incapable of acting within them, or making much of anything else. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Moreover,
it might as well be incapable of changing at all, so it wouldn't be
able to learn anything at all. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="personhood"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>15.6)
Personhood </b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Craig
gives three arguments in support of the claim that the first cause is
personal: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="personalvsscientific"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: blue;"><b>15.6.1)
Personal explanations and scientific explanations</b></span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Craig
claims that, as Swinburne "points out", there are two kinds
of explanations: personal and scientific. </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage192">[17]</a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Of
course, Swinburne <i>argues </i>for that, but the matter is surely
contentious. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Craig
does not defend the distinction, and it would be beyond the scope of
this article to show all that's wrong with Swinburne's claim, but I
will point out that a personal agent acting on some volition can also
be put in terms of a law and some conditions. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">For
instance: "If agent A decides X, then X happens", and
"Agent A decides X" would be a way of putting it in such
terms. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">If
an agent with a "timeless" volition is posited as a cause
of the universe that is temporal with the universe, and one assumes -
</span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">against</a><span style="color: black;">
</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection">good</a><span style="color: black;">
</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios">reasons</a><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">-
that the claim is coherent, then one might as well posit some
non-personal timeless stuff, with the property that it causes -
deterministically or not - the universe. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There
would be initial conditions too, but - one could say, mirroring the
theist's claims - not initial in a temporal sense, but in the
(mysterious) "timeless" sense in which Craig's deity would
be timeless, and whose coherence I'm assuming in this part of the
article for the sake of the argument. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="otherproperties"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>15.6.2)
Other properties of the first cause</b></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Another
argument Craig gives is based on the previous "conclusions"
that the first cause is timeless, immaterial, beginningless,
uncaused, and spaceless. </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage193">[32]</a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
I've shown earlier, most of those claims have insurmountable
problems, so this argument fails as well. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="free"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>15.6.3)
"Free agency"</b></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
third avenue Craig takes, in order to support the claim that the
first cause is personal, is based on what he calls "free
agency", and "agent causation". </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage193">[32]</a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">While
I have no objections to the claim that, say, humans sometimes act on
their own free will, that does not have anything to do with
non-determinism; further, the kind of "freedom" posited by
Craig should not be characterized as "freedom", but more
properly <i>randomness, </i>and randomness surely does not require
agency, or even minds. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
let's take a look at the matter in more detail: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">First,
Craig claims that because the agent is free, he can bring about
things in absence of previously present conditions. </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage193">[32]</a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That
clearly is not a good characterization of human freedom. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
fact, indeterminism in humans has nothing to do with freedom - or
rather, it might get in the way. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="background: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">To
see this, let's consider the following scenario:</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Bob
has been a good police officer for ten years now.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">He's
kind, committed to protect and to serve the public, good to his
children, and so on.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now,
one morning, Bob goes to work as usual. The police get a call about a
domestic disturbance, and Bob and another officer are sent to the
address they're given.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">When
they arrive there, they encounter Mary, a fourteen-year old girl high
on drugs, acting completely irrationally. She tells Bob: "You're
a police officer, so you're evil. Why don't you shoot me?".</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Bob
has no reason at all to shoot Mary. She poses no threat to him, and
can be easily arrested if needed. Also, Bob is a good person.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
it's clear that he has the <i>power </i>to shoot her, and
is <i>free</i> to choose whether to shoot her. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">All
he'd have to do is pull his gun, point it at her, and shoot. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">No
one would see that coming, so no one could stop him if he did that.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
Bob - of course - feels no inclination whatsoever to shoot her, does
not shoot her, and follows procedure.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">The
point is that saying that Bob </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>can </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">shoot
Mary, that he has the </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>power </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">to
shoot her, that he is </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>free</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">
to choose whether to shoot her, etc., means that he would shoot
her </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>if he chose to
do so, </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">that he's not
being coerced, etc. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">It
does </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>not </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">mean
that, even given Bob's mental state at the time he chose to
follow procedure, and even given all the conditions of the world at
that time, it was still possible that Bob would shoot her.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That
can be ascertained by introspection and analysis of the meaning of
the terms.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
if that is unpersuasive, let's suppose otherwise, and let's assume
that Bob has the kind of "freedom" proposed by
libertarians. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Then,
since Bob could have shot her, but libertarian-freely decided not to
shoot her, it seems that there is a world W with the exact same past
as ours prior to Bob's decision to follow procedure, at which Bob
shot Mary instead. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">But
that </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>is not an
exercise of freedom, in the usual sense of the words. </i></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">To
see this, let's consider Bob's mental processes leading to his
"decision" to shoot Mary - say, decision D. Bob never
considered shooting her, and had no desire, intention, etc., before
decision D happened.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
at some time, his earlier mental processes did not determine his
later mental processes. There is an event "Bob decides to shoot
Mary" that happens irrespective of any previous states of Bob's
mind, and no matter how much Bob would loath being a murderer.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">All
of Bob's previous reasoning, desires, behavior, intentions, etc., are
incapable to stop "decision" D from happening. But how's
that </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>Bob's </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">decision?</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">It
seems D it's not so much a decision Bob made, but rather, it's
something that happened </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>to </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">Bob.
It's not something Bob could have anticipated, or prevented: at some
point his mental processes changed from normal to "shoot Mary",
without forewarning, and without any cause in previous mental
processes.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">Someone
might claim that </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>necessarily</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">,
there is always </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>some </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">hidden
reason to shoot people, or to do </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>anything </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">one
can do, but that would have to be argued for, and even then, that
would not change the fact that, in that case, Bob could not have
prevented his mental processes from changing at some point from
normal to "shoot Mary", no matter what he did before - and
that change could not be reasonably said to be </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>his </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">decision,
since he had never considered that before, and the change took him by
surprise.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Those
considerations show that that kind of thing should not be called
"freedom", but more like "an unfortunate kind of
randomness". </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That
does not mean that agent non-determinism isn't true. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
that is surely not required for freedom, and in fact, it might
undermine it, as the previous scenario shows. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Perhaps,
there are situations after which, after assessing the pros and cons,
a human is undecided between A or ¬A; if so, maybe there is a
truly random outcome generator for such cases (which might involve
also several mutually exclusive options: A1, A2, A3,...)</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
if that is the case, that is not required for free will: a random
generator that delivers 'decisions' in cases in which the mind
remains undecided clearly does not result in more freedom than a mind
that actually makes decisions. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">So,
if there is such indeterminism, as long as the indeterministic events
happen when a person is undecided (based on her previous feelings,
desires, reasoning, etc., she is undecided and does not cause any
outcome), </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>maybe </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">that
kind of randomness is </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>compatible</i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">
with free will, but that's all. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">On
the other hand, if there is an indeterministic feature of human
behavior that happens to be like Bob's example above - i.e., if it
happens </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>against </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">everything
that the person stood for, his previous considerations, etc. -, then,
and as the previous example shows, that kind of indeterminism - at
least, when it happens - would actually </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>preclude </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">free
will; rather, the 'decision' would be an unfortunately random will.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">There
is another way to see this, taking into account that even under
the </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>exact </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">same
preexisting conditions - including, of course, the previous mental
states of the libertarian-free agent. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
let's consider the following scenario (relativizing time as
required):</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Alice
is a libertarian-free human, and at t(s), the state of worlds W and
W' is exactly the same - that includes, of course, Alice's mental
processes.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Later,
Alice libertarian-freely chooses A at W, and B at W', even though the
states of the worlds prior to Alice's decision were the same (A is
different from B). </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-left: 1cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
other words, W and W' are exactly the same until Alice's mental
processes diverge.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now,
let p be a Planck time, and n a non-negative integer, starting with
0.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's
consider times t(s)+n*p, and the states of W and W', W(n) and W'(n)
respectively.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let
n(l) be the last n such that W(n) = W'(n).</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">Since
the 'decision' was made even given the </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>exact </i></span><span style="text-decoration: none;">same
prior conditions, it seems that the 'decision' happened between
t(s)+n(l)*p, and t(s)+(n(l)+1)*p = t(s)+n(l)*p+p, in other words, the
decision was made </span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><i>in
not more than a Planck time.</i></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That's
way too fast for any human conscious decision, though. So, it becomes
clearer that the first indeterministic event E that distinguishes
between W and W' is same random alteration of Alice's mental
processes. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">And
if previous processes in her mind made E in some sense probable -
assuming that objective probability makes sense -, but weren't enough
to bring it about, something still altered her mind randomly. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">And
in those cases in which the improbable</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">'decision'
happens - i.e., the decision that her previous mental processes made
improbable - we're back with something like the unfortunate case of
Bob, </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#free">the
libertarian-free police officer. </a>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Someone might
still object that, if such a random change in her mind happened, she
still could have changed her mind, and refrained from carrying out
the decision - in the case of the </span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#freedom">first
example</a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
the shooting. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The problem
is, though, that if you can have such a random event </span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">between
t(s)+n(l)*p, and t(s)+(n(l)+1)*p, it seems you can have another one
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">at
every single Planck time that follows, </span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">until
the "decision" that was completely against everything the
person previously stood for, actually happens. </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
let's suppose someone introduces some fuzziness in some way - which
they would have to explain, of course; else, the previous reasoning
stands. Even then, the fact would remain that the agent would have a
random component - a change in her mind she can't bring about,
because it happens no matter what she tried previously; it's just
that we wouldn't be able to see that by means of analyzing the
process step-by-step, but all of the other reasons I've given above
remain. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A
theist might say that that's 'actually the agent acting', or
something like that but - whatever that means -, the fact would
remain that that would a partially random agent acting, not one in
which mental processes are sufficient to bring about behavior; it
would be an agent with a randomly altered mind - i.e., a mind that
suffers some alterations that have no sufficient causes; it's akin to
dice-throwing, and in some cases, it might go against everything the
agent had stood for up till then. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So,
for all of the previous reasons, </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">libertarian</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">free
will ought to be rejected. </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; text-decoration: none; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That
does not mean we can't act of our own accord, of course. We can have
freedom; it's just that the libertarian account of freedom is the
wrong account. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Second,
humans aside, someone might posit that the first cause is not
deterministic, even though as we saw, indeterminism doesn't have
anything to do with freedom. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But
if the first cause and its "timeless" volition - assuming
coherence in this part of the rebuttal for the sake of the argument,
but </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#AcontradictioninCraig">against</a><span style="color: black;">
</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#craigobjection"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">good</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;">
</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#scenarios">reasons</a><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">-
aren't sufficient conditions to bring about the universe, then that
only </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">detracts
</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">for
the first cause's power, as he might have failed to bring about the
universe. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<a href="" name="godmeaning"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>15.7)
The meaning of "God"</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
previous arguments show, Craig's arguments fail to support the
conclusion that there is a first cause, or a cause of the universe,
or that - assuming that there is such a first cause -, the cause has
the properties he claims it has. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
there is one more point I'd like to address here, and it's about the
meaning of "God": </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 3cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>William
Lane Craig:</b></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#notepage194">[33]</a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 4cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">5.0.
Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who
sans the universe </span></span>is beginningless, changeless,
immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This,
as Thomas Aquinas was wont to remark, is what everybody means by
“God.”</span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Actually,
that is not what everybody means by "God". </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
may not even be what most people mean by "God". </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">For
instance, Richard Swinburne</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#swinburnesgod">[34]
</a><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">means
"a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is
eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and
the creator of all things". </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There
is nothing in Craig's description that entails omnipotence,
omniscience, moral goodness, etc. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Moreover,
Swinburne explicitly denies that timelessness is part of the meaning.
</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#swinburnesgod">[34]</a></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
let's take a look at the matter from another perspective: </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If
an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect creator of all other
beings existed, and moreover he intervened in human history, but he
were not timeless, it would be hard to find many people saying that
God does not exist, on account of a lack of timelessness (assuming
that "timeless" is meaningful, that is). </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
same goes for changelessness. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On
the other hand, if an entity like the one Craig describes existed
(assuming again that the description is coherent)<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
but - for example - he were not omniscient, not omnipotent, not
morally perfect (or even morally good), and never intervened in human
history - no afterlife, either -, it seems to me that plenty of
people would be inclined to say that God does not exist, without
error. </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
fact, even if the Kalam Cosmological Argument - or, more generally,
any argument - succeeded in showing that the universe has a cause,
and even if further argumentation succeeded in showing that said
cause is an intelligent being with some of the properties Craig
ascribes to him in the previous quotation - or all of them, assuming
they make sense -, that would still not establish that God exists, in
the sense the word "God" is often - perhaps usually - used
by theists, and would be compatible with - for instance - deism. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="Conclusion"></a>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>16)
Conclusion: </b></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="conclusion"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The arguments made
above show that the KCA provides no support for theism, at least if
either a tensed or a tenseless theory of time is true. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
results may not cover all interpretations of the premises, or perhaps
uncommon theories of time. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However,
they are quite general, covering not only William Lane Craig's
version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but a number of
alternatives as well, including, it seems to me, all the main
possibilities in present-day philosophy. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="notesreferences"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: blue;"><b>Notes
and references:</b></span> </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[0]</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="kalam"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source: William Lane
Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument",
in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology", Edited by
William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, © 2009 Blackwell
Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<br />Page 102. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="timelessincoherencenote"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[1]</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">With
the difference that any statements like “the actual world
contains no state of affairs S at which God exists timelessly”
should be simply ignored if "timeless" is meaningless. But
the main result is the same. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[2]</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="event1"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source: William Lane
Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument",
in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology", Edited by
William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, © 2009 Blackwell
Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<br />Page 106. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="rsf1"></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>[3]</b></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5673&printer_friendly=1</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[4]</span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="rsf2"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5971</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="othergodchanges"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[5]</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The choice of the
change in God from timelessness to temporalness as the event is only
one possibility. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There are
alternatives. For instance, let say the actual world contains a state
of affairs S at which God exists timelessly. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Then, at S, time
does not exist, so it's not the case that God knows that time exists.
On the other hand, at t=0, God knows that time exists. <br />Let E(1)
be the event “God comes to know that time exists” </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Another alternative
would be:</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">At S, there are no
tensed facts. So, it's not the case that God knows any tensed truths.
At t=0, there are tensed facts, so God knows tensed truths. Thus,
God's mind changed - he came to know tensed truths -, and one can
consider the event E(2) “God changes from not knowing any
tensed facts at S, to knowing some tensed facts at t=0”. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="creationevent"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[6]</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">On
his website, Craig</span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#creationevent2"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[7]</span></span></a><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">says
that it's not clear to him that creation itself is an event which
determines a before and an after. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">However,
that E(0) – or, for that matter, E(1), or E(2) </span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#othergodchanges"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="text-decoration: none;">–
</span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">is
an event follows straightforwardly from the definition of “event”:
an event is any change, and Craig himself says that God changed. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Also, Craig claims
that any event takes time, and a contradiction follows. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In fact, the
definition of "event" is not even needed. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The claim that any
change takes time is sufficient to derive the contradiction. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On that note, let us
suppose the the event E(2) “God changes from not knowing any
tensed facts at S, to knowing some tensed facts at t=0” has
zero duration. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So, at the beginning
of the event, it is not the case that God knows any tensed facts -
since the event is precisely the change in God from not knowing any
tensed facts, to knowing some tensed facts. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On the other hand,
at the end of the event, God does know some tensed facts. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now, since the event
ends at t=0 and its duration is <i>zero</i>, its beginning is also at
t=0. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Thus, at t=0, God
does not know any tensed facts, and at t=0, God knows some tensed
facts. But that's impossible. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The previous
argument can alternatively be put in the following way: if the change
in God from knowing no tensed facts to knowing at least one tensed
fact is literally instantaneous and occurs at t=0, then at t=0 both
the state from which God changes and the state into which he changes
are present. So, at t=0, it's not the case that God does not know any
tensed facts, and at t=0, God knows at least one tensed fact. But
that is impossible. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Someone might object
that E(2) does not begin at t=0, but at the "timeless state"
S. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However, using the
word "timeless" is not a license to circumvent logic: if
the event ends at t=0, and its duration is literally <i>zero</i>,
then its beginning is also present at t=0 as well. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="creationevent2"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[7]</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9069&printer_friendly=1</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="meaningbegins"></a>
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[8]</span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>W.
L. Craig and J. P. Sinclair</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
affirming that things which begin to exist need a cause, the
</span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">mutakallim
</span></i></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">assumes
the following understanding of that notion, where “</span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">x</span></i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">”
</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">r</span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">anges
over any entity and “</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>t</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">”
ranges over times, whether instants or moments of nonzero finite
duration:</span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<a href="" name="beginsdefinition"></a>
<br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;">A.
</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>x </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">begins
to exist at </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>t </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">iff
</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>x </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">comes
into being at </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>t</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">.
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 3cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #231f20;">B.
</span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>x </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">comes
into being at </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>t </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">iff
(i) </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>x </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">exists
at </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>t, </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">and
the actual world includes no state of affairs in which </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>x
</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">exists timelessly, (ii) </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>t
</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">is either the first time at which </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>x
</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">exists or is separated from any </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>t</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">′
< </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>t </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">at
which </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>x </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">existed
by an interval during which </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>x </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">does
not exist, and (iii) </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>x</i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">’s
existing at </span><span style="color: #231f20;"><i>t </i></span><span style="color: #231f20;">is
a tensed fact. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="notepage184"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source: William Lane
Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument",
in "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology", <span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Edited
by William lane Craig and J. P. Moreland; pages 184, 185. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[9]</span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="notebeginmeaning1"></a>
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Later,
I will consider </span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#An alternative reading of the first premise would not"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">alternative
readings of "begins to exist"</span></span></a><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">,
showing that alternative versions of the KCA based on them provide no
support for theism, either. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Also,
I will analyze the meaning of "begins to exist" in more
detail in the </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699#appendix1"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">section
ten.</span></span></a><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[10]</span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<a href="" name="temporalalone"></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Someone
might not accept the claim that, on a tensed theory of time, the fact
of temporal becoming alone - i.e., the passage of time - counts as a
change. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">According
to such a view, even if there were infinitely many times t(n+1) <
t(n), for all n, without any change in any entity, that would not be
enough to establish that there are infinitely many past
events/changes. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">There
is no need to settle that matter here, since in this case, by
assumption, </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">God</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">exists
at t and at u < t, and that entails an event, as I show in </span></span></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=207940809631227645&postID=5312420204189273699# an A-Theory of time is true infinitely many pastevents"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">section
three</span></span></a><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
</span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[11]</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="discretetime"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A consequence that
might be of interest is the following one: </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since,
for every two times u < t, one can consider the event E(u,t): “God
comes to know that u is past, and t is present”, it follows
that for every two points in time, there is a corresponding event. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since,
on a tensed theory of time, there can't be infinitely many events
between two given points, then it follows that there can't be
infinitely many points in time between two given points in time. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
other words, on a tensed theory of time, there cannot be infinitely
many events, one after the other, in a closed temporal interval
[t1,t2]. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Thus,
given the God assumption, such an interval can't contain infinitely
many instants, either. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
follows that time is discrete, not continuous. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="notsupportnote"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[12]</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">By
"in the context of the KCA" I mean that I make no claim
here as to whether something provides support for theism in other
contexts - i.e., whether something would support an argument for
theism different from the KCA, in any of its versions. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Such
a claim would far exceed the scope of this article. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[13]</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="eventmeaning"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
always, an event is any change. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="notehyp2"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[14]</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Here,
"x"is just as in Craig's hypothesis - i.e., it can be any
being -, and 0 ≤ t1 ≤ t2. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
for the interval [t1,t2], an interval seems to be required because
otherwise, there might be a problem in cases of vagueness: e.g.,
there may not be a specific instant t such that the Moon existed at
t, but at no u < t: the word "Moon" may be too vague for
that. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That
also seems to be in line with common speech: when we say that
something began on a day, or a year, etc., we're considering
intervals, not instants. Even when we speak in terms of seconds, or
millisecond, we're speaking in terms of intervals, even if very short
ones. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="Atheoryneeded"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[15]</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 183. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[16]
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="notecraigreply"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9269</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="notepage192"></a>
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[17]</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<br />Page 192. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="notepage1842"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[18]</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 184. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[19]</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="timelessnote1"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Assuming here, and
for the sake of the argument, that "timeless" is coherent. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="notepage182"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[20]</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 182.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[21]</span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="notecauses"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That aside, let me
stress that adopting the view that all events have causes does not
require one to adopt the view that only events have causes, and not
adopting the view that everything that begins to exist has a cause
does not require one to adopt the view that some things that begin to
exist have no causes. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[22]
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="hotelquote1"></a>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source: The
Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Edited
by William lane Craig and J. P. Moreland; page 109. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[23]
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="minusset"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">By
“Set A minus set B” I mean the set C whose elements are
all the elements that are in A, but are not in B. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="notezeno"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[24]</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Page
119. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="notefailure"></a>
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[25]</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Of
course, the KCA would still fail for some the other reasons explained
in this article, even if </span></span><span style="color: black;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">all
</span></i></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">of
Craig's arguments against an infinity were successful. But I'm trying
to be thorough. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="noteshandy1"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[26]
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Pages
120-124</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="noteleap"></a>
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[27]</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I'm
stipulating 1 year = 365 days and ignoring leap years, for the sake
of simplicity; a more complicated proof would include leap years, but
it's clear that the contradiction does not depend on whether we count
leap years. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="notepage120"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[28]</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Page
120. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Incidentally,
it seems that the 'planets' argument also fails to distinguish
between a tensed and a tenseless theory of time. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="notecardinal"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[29]</span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I'm
using the definition of the cardinal of an ordinal </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">n</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">as
the least ordinal </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">m</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">that
can be put in a one-to-one correspondence with </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">n</span></i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(ordinals
are sets, and so are cardinals), but that's not important here. The
relevant point is that there is no absurdity or counterintuitive
result, once one takes into consideration what the words actually
mean. </span></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="standardbigbangnote"></a>
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">[30]</span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to </span>Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6; page 130. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="noteconceptual"></a>
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[31]
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<br />Pages
191-194. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="notepage193"></a>
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[32]
</span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<br />Page 193. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name="notepage194"></a>
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[33]</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Source:
William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological
Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural
Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ©
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6<br />Page 194. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[34]</span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<a href="" name="swinburnesgod"></a>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Swinburne,
Richard "The Existence of God", Second Edition.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Cla</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">rendon
Press Oxford. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Page
7. </span></span></span></span></span>
</div>Angra Mainyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com0