Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: johnnyb_61820

Ah, but an agent must come about through law or chance before it can act as a cause. So how high do those turtles stack up?


129 posted on 08/04/2005 5:26:14 AM PDT by TOWER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]


To: TOWER

"Ah, but an agent must come about through law or chance before it can act as a cause."

That is the naturalistic assumption. But it is an assumption, not a conclusion. Agents must follow law, but it is an assumption that agents arise themselves from natural law, and/or that law and chance provide complete descriptions of their behavior.

Let's pretend that this is the case -- that agents are completely defined by natural law. This completely undermines any sort of rational thought, because it means that our thoughts are not controllable, but entirely constrained based upon chance and natural law. If this is the case, then we have no reason to believe our thoughts -- they are merely uncontrollable products of happenstance.


131 posted on 08/04/2005 6:09:34 AM PDT by johnnyb_61820
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson