Tomorrow is the traditional Chinese new year’s day, Ben wishes you a happy lunar new year!
The mascot of this year is DOG! And Ben likes a world famous beagle:
January 28, 2006
January 21, 2006
An Argument Against Antinomies
Alvin Plantinga gives an argument to negative the Antinomies by Immanuel Kant, it is my first time read a disproval to the great arguments of Antinomies of Kant.
Plantinga disputes the premises of Kant’s argument. He picks the first pair of contradictory propositions of the four ones as an example.
Obverse: The universe has a beginning temporally and has a bound spatially
Reversed: There is no beginning and bound of the universe, the universe is infinite
Kant argues:
For (Ob): Suppose there is not a beginning temporally, perpetuity has passed away before a certain time, an infinite sequence which has continuous occurrences had vanished before. But the infinity of a sequence rests with that it can not consist by a serial synthesis. Hereby, an infinite sequence of occurrences can not vanish, thus, a beginning of the universe is necessary.
For (Re): Suppose there is a beginning of the universe, as the beginning is a being that there is no such an occurrence, for which there must be a period without the universe before the beginning, in other words, there is a vacant time. However, there can be nothing happens in vacancy, for the time has not a part which has an exceptional qualification making for existence but not nonexistence.
Plantinga analyzes the argument:
For (Ob) there is a premise that all the occurrences should increase in an invariable rate. It is correct entirely. If you start from the first one (or from N, and N is finite), and the rate is one more thing per second, then you can never complete the sequence; there are countable occurrences in every subsequent second. However, form our knowledge of ad infinitum at present; it is possible to complete an infinite sequence in a limited time – when each occurrence spends less time than the very previous one. If the first spends one second, the second spends an half, the third spends a quarter, and the fourth spends eighth, analogically, no matter how many occurrences even there are infinite ones, it needs no more than two seconds. It is not wrong that it can not complete a infinite sequence from the spot which is a limited remove from the beginning when limited occurrences in a rated time. But, Kant goes on: thus it can be seen, an infinitely universal sequence can not vanish in this condition, and so, it is necessary that the universe has a beginning.
It is unable to deduce such a conclusion. As it has released the proposition needs to demonstrate when he says the conclusion is demonstrable. The premise is correct in intuitive stage, but there is an ad referendum when it transits to the conclusion, which has assumes the proposition: the sequence has a beginning.
For (Re) there are two important premises: there are some occurrences without time and there is nothing happens in a vacant time as it can not explain that why some parts happen in a vacant time but not other parts happen.
To the first premise, it can be true only when we assume that time and the universe (the first occurrence) do not come into beings at the same time. But we do not know if it is impossible. In fact, according to some popular theories of time, it is not only possible, and it is true.
And to the other premise, suppose that infinite time has passed away before the first occurrence happened, and the opposite is there is no more reason that the universe begins in this certain time but not that, and it can not begins in any other time. But why should we believe this? Why it can not begin in any that time.
When Plantinga disproves this Antinomy, he says that the arguments of other Antinomies have not fewer problems than this one.
Anyway, it is brilliant to argue these propositions; no matter we can understand Kant’s word inextenso. The more impressed argument, for Plantinga, is the disproval of the proposition that we can not think of God as we do not have proper conception of God – and for Kant’s sake, and that is the point of the first chapter of this book.
January 19, 2006
Kant’s? Fault Too!
Ben is reading Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief, just at the beginning, there is a lesson from the first pages. We should break the fetters of mind those we hitch ourselves.
Plantinga doubts the arguments from Immanuel Kant, that as God, the being (conception) is beyond over man’s thought and predicated confine, thus God the being is not justifiable. From the Didacticism period, almost all the philosophers become the adherents of Immanuel Kant’s. The are bounded in the notion of the God the being can be not exactly defined and described significatively by man’s mind and thought.
Plantinga proofs that the two disputations: de facto and de jure can not stand up neither.
Thus, a lesson from it is we should have moxie to think the truth no matter what a giantlike man had argue something on some issues. We can just think more and deeper, for the Truth and God.
January 18, 2006
Winter for Reading
Winter is a season for reading.
I like groveling in my warm quilts and put a book or a magazine on my pillow when I enjoy reading on a cold winter night.
However, the dorm has such a limit on the night-reading, as the electricity power will be cut off at the midnight. Winter vacation gives me an opportunity of reading at a time others are sleeping at home. It is just like a private feast.
Sometimes, I suspect that if I can live without internet, as I always have a thirsty of information. Anyway, what I want is information but not html of xml pages. Books and printed stuff are also alluring. When I keep away from the internet, I can read better and absorbedly.
There is a program of reading for the initial preparation for my thesis in this winter, I think I will relinquish my wish of furlough when facing the formidable reading plan.
Philosophy of religion and some theological issues would be the points. I missed so much time during the semester time as there were so many regular works to do. A satori I got from the life in this semester is relaxation can be never deserved but a bonus for the life has breaks only. In other words, a hypostasis of man is labouring, all kinds of labours, the only difference from each other is we call some jobs recessing.
