Friday, January 12, 2007

Tim's faith trilogy

The computer I normally do a lot of work from has not been online and I'm finally doing a bit of solid short story writing like I've been trying to throughout the holidays. If these two issues weren't keeping me from blogging, I have a strange feeling I'd probably finally get around to that old "How Does My Ethic/Moral/Belief System Work?" entry that has been inevitable since I started this blog. I'd probably also be keeping up with and commenting more on my friend Tim's blog. Tim tends to be my philosophical sparring partner, though we rarely find the luxury of a firm disagreement. He has a sort of trilogy of postings on faith up right now, which I recommend.

1. On fallacies and faith

2. What if the Blasphemy Challenge had been a scam?

3. How the Bible implies that unicorns exist

I only call them a trilogy on account of their being consecutive. He has written a few other notable entries in the past as well, like this one and this one.

I'm a sucker for these kinds of discussions and hate seeing them go by without comment. Any thoughts?

4 Comments:

Blogger Tim McCormack said...

Less of a trilogy and more of an... unholy trinity! Yeah. I like the sound of that...

By the way, I would be very surprised if anyone could find a serious flaw in my reasoning in the unicorns post. It is modeled after a well-known mathematical proof.

3:22 PM  
Blogger Tim McCormack said...

Oh, and I'm looking forward to your post on your personal ethics system. Come to think of it, I should write one of my own.

3:24 PM  
Blogger Cory Capron said...

"By the way, I would be very surprised if anyone could find a serious flaw in my reasoning in the unicorns post."

I'm doubtful too. Though something about the way you worded it struck me as sketchy. (Reminded me of your method to always win at least one game of chess.) So I was hoping it would at least provoke an attempt.

5:07 PM  
Blogger Tim McCormack said...

"Though something about the way you worded it struck me as sketchy."

You might focus on the derivation of the implication "If unicorns do not exist, then God can not change his mind." That is the crux of the argument, after all.

The reason it sounds odd is that this logic construction is not found in normal proofs, which in turn is due to the fact that most proofs are not dealing with such an odd set of axioms.

"So I was hoping it would at least provoke an attempt."

Me too! But even the trolls seem to be in low abundance today.

3:52 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home