Steven Carr

Philosophy has a bad reputation as a set of people determined to show that black is white, by torturing logic, obfuscation, redefining words and altering the sense of what is written

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...cs/hasker.html

seems to be a very good example

Luiseach

Isn't William Lane Craig a Christian apologist?

Rusting Car Bumper

Sure. This accusation has been made since the beginning days of what we now call philosophy.

Remember that Socrates was executed.

DC

Shadowy Man

"The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it."

- Bertrand Russell

Clutch

A good example of poor reasoning; a bad example of good philosophy.

When you, Steven, attempt to point out the inconsistencies and implausibilities of various apologetics, you are almost always doing philosophy.

I wouldn't use many of yours as paradigm cases of good philosophy either, mind you.

In any case, your allusion to the "bad reputation" of philosophy looks like an attempted fallacy, appeal to majority. I say "attempted" because in this case we don't even have the majority -- just your assertion that it exists.

fried beef sandwich

Well, if you mean that the essay in the URL is a good example of someone determined to show that black is white, by torturing logic, obfuscation, redefining words and altering the sense of what is written, then I totally agree.

Steven Carr

Thank goodness for that. It would be really bad if an amateur like me could make more progress than professionals.

I just write what I think, and hope others will teach me where I am wrong.

I would appreciate it, for example, if in the thread on Plantinga and Counterfactuals, you help me see if I am going wrong.

Plantinga and Craig say there are true counterfactuals. For example, it might be true that you would have got up and got a drink of water, if you had been thirsty one minute ago.

http://www.unl.edu/philosop/freewill&moralresponsib.htm has Inwagen's argument

-------------------------------------------

2) You can be responsible for Q only if it is in your power to render Q false.

(3) However, you only have that power if you have the power to render false what determines Q to be true.
...........
So suppose that included in ‘Q’ is, among other things, the claim that you will get up and get a drink of water. '
-----------------------------------------------------

So what does determine counterfactuals to be true?

Take a counterfactual like 'Had I been thirsty 1 minute ago, I would have drunk some water.' This is presumably a true counterfactual, but it can never be rendered false by me, because I was never in the situation of being thirsty 1 minute ago, so I never made a free will choice about whether or not to drink water.

So how does somebody render a counterfactual false?

Indeed, Plantinga maintains counterfactuals about me are true, even if I am never actualised by God.

How can I render these counterfactuals false, when I never exist to do anything about them?

Clutch

Steven, I'll head straight over there and do what I can.