Download episode 15 here!
Today we have as guest the philosopher Joshua Rasmussen. He's currently a post-doc fellow at Notre Dame University, and has published a variety of material including arguments pertaining to necessary beings. You can visit his academic website here.
On the podcast we discuss his paper "A New Argument for a Necessary Being" (Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 13 Oct 2011). Download the podcast in the link above, or stream it in the playlist at the top of the blog home page.
Enjoy!
Goodness Over God: The Blog Associated with the Counter-Apologetics Podcast of Ben Wallis and Michael Long
First off, an excellent podcast that I've been really enjoying. The title though is slightly misleading as you seem to focus on the foundations of reasoning rather than the morality without a deity side of things ;-)
ReplyDeleteNot that I'm complaining, loving it all the same.
I would like to comment on the grue issue with induction comment and why you said that there's something 'wrong' with it.
It seems to me (excuse me as I use maths terminology) that grue is a function of a physical property over time - that is being blue or green. In that X = grue if (the light reflected from it is within the range of our definition of green & t < xxxx),(the light reflected from it is within the range of our definition of blue & t >= xxxx).
(when I say reflected I really mean everything but that set of wavelengths is absorbed)
So the emeralds are always green but only before time xxxx are they grue. It seems to me that because grue is defined in terms of another we can presume that induction holds as long as that other property holds.
So induction can be used to confirm that an object is grue or not as we can use induction to confirm that an object is green, blue, or not and grue is dependent upon both the physical property and time.