Profile

Cover photo
Russell Jones
Works at Virante, Inc.
Attended UNC Chapel Hill
Lives in Durham, NC
360 followers|5,195 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTubeReviews

Stream

Russell Jones

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
I completely undersand why William Lane Craig was frustrated. Maudlin showed up to a discussion on God and Cosmology to present a paper which he provided to other participants for response. That morning he decided that instead of presenting the paper, he felt he needed to instead talk about why the question of God and Cosmology isn't useful (who cares about Boltzmann Brains) because even if God exists it doesn't have any meaning (morally, purposefully, etc.).  He even announced this at the beginning of his talk saying he was about to give a sermon.

The questions the forum hoped to address are those that require thoughtful inquiry, not on-the-spot responses. Showing up and giving a speech at best tangential to the topic and wholly different from the intended discussion removes nearly any chance of truly insightful discussion (as no one had any time to prepare, study, critique or question Maudlin's thoughts).

Finally, I am growing sick and tired of hearing guys like Maudlin and Rosenberg and Krauss show up to debates and discussions and then complain about the format as not being useful or valuable. If it isn't, then just don't show up. Don't waste your audiences time telling them they are wasting their time listening to you give them that information in the format that you consider to be a waste of time.

On a final note, did we seriously have to hear th Euthyphro Dillema again? Seriously, this has been asked and answered for centuries... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma#False_dilemma_response Whether you think the answer is credible or not is one thing, but to present it as if there is no articulate response from the theist is simply false.
1
linuxisbetter0's profile photosonic_blue's profile photo
2 comments
 
Maudlin is a philosopher.  
Add a comment...

Russell Jones

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Perhaps I am just confused, but it seems professor Rosenberg gives us a limited view of that 3rd omni - "Omniscience". 

He seems to argue that...

1. Humans were the result of an unreliable natural process (Darwinism)
2. An omniscient being would know this process to be unreliable.
3. An omniscient being would not use an unreliable process to create humans if that was its purpose.
4. Therefor, an omniscient being with the primary purpose of creating humans is incompatible with Darwinism.

However, this seems to be a very uncharitable description of omniscience. For example, he goes on to say that one way out of this would be for the omniscient being interested in human creation to create the multiverse, but that would increase suffering and thus would be counter to the omni-benevolence claim in theism. While he did not defend this position in depth given the time, I will grant him that because I think this isn't even close to the only argument against his position.

There are many, many answers to his argument...

William Craig proposed the first: An omniscient being would be cognizant of the counterfactuals and could induce particular mutations. I think this one is a little weak in the sense that it would, in my opinion, contrive Darwinism as to include purposeful mutations. This, to me would pervert Darwinism to a degree that it would no longer be considered the same thing.

The second, which stems off of William Craigs position, is that an omniscient being would be cognizant of the counterfactuals and could induce the "natural filtration" that Rosenberg mentioned, that would direct the course. Let's say I have a completely random number generator that is used to produce any natural number and print it to a sheet of paper. This is a process that is completely random. However, there is a filtration system in place that causes an earthquake and sets fire to any sheet of paper whenever that number printed out is not the number 5. The probability of observing the number 5 becomes very high. Without tinkering at all with the actual randomization side, an omniscient/omnipotent being can simply create the circumstances under-which certain adaptations would succeed and others would not.

Finally, Rosenberg's position that an omniscient God could create the multiverse to guarantee that at least 1 produces human life seems uncharitable in the sense that the omniscient being would need to let these universes play out over time to know which would produce human life. Why would am omniscient being not already know which universe would lead to produce human life? Why would an omniscient being actually have to create the universe, rather than imagine all of them it in fast-forward so to speak, and then simply pick the one that would produce human life? 

All of these seem to be reasonable counters to Rosenberg's claim that Darwinism is necessarily anti-theist. 
1
Add a comment...

Russell Jones

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
The most #devious   link building campaign in history may also be the one that is the most #hypocritical   rendering either #mattcutts    or #johnmueller    a #liar   as they seem to disagree as to whether trading backlinks for thumbnail images in search results constitutes a link scheme in violation of Google's guidelines. Either mueller and the Google Quality Team are right, and giving upgraded listings (ie: authorship thumbnails) in exchange for links (ie: authorship markup) is against the Guidelines, making the Google+ Authorship Program a #duplicitous   link scheme or #mattcutts   is right and we can create authorship programs of our own on our blogs and forums that give our users more features if they confirm website ownership by linking to their profiles. Or, more likely than not, it is yet another #sneaky     #unfair   #doublestandard  placed on webmasters who have to live by different rules than Google.
2
102
hassanshahid shahid's profile photokaroline flores's profile photo
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
360 people

Russell Jones

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
I wonder if that very fancy computer can run Crysis 3 in full resolution?
1
Add a comment...

Russell Jones

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
His statement that just because everyone in the room is delusional doesn't mean that no one is delusional, everyone is still deluded is false. To be delusional, one must hold a belief with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. If there is no one present to give you evidence to the contrary, because everyone or most people hold the same belief as you, you are not delusional. It is a necessary condition of being delusional that one be presented superior evidence to the contrary. Only then can you determine whether the person is delusional.  His whole argument begins with a falsehood and a misunderstanding of the term delusional. This is a joke.
1
Matt Fitt's profile photoFourDeuce01's profile photokamphwagon1's profile photoMrJayguess's profile photo
52 comments
 
+55k3v1n "I'm stunned that not ONE atheist has done so up to this point."  I'm stunned that you're too stupid to understand that no atheist NEEDS to do that. If you ever learn some logic, you'll see how stupid your statement is.
Add a comment...
 
The most #devious   link building campaign in history may also be the one that is the most #hypocritical   rendering either #mattcutts    or #johnmueller    a #liar   as they seem to disagree as to whether trading backlinks for thumbnail images in search results constitutes a link scheme in violation of Google's guidelines. Either mueller and the Google Quality Team are right, and giving upgraded listings (ie: authorship thumbnails) in exchange for links (ie: authorship markup) is against the Guidelines, making the Google+ Authorship Program a #duplicitous   link scheme or #mattcutts   is right and we can create authorship programs of our own on our blogs and forums that give our users more features if they confirm website ownership by linking to their profiles. Or, more likely than not, it is yet another #sneaky     #unfair   #doublestandard  placed on webmasters who have to live by different rules than Google.
7
118
hassanshahid shahid's profile photokaroline flores's profile photo
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
360 people
Work
Occupation
Chief Technology Officer
Employment
  • Virante, Inc.
    Chief Technology Officer, present
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Durham, NC
Previously
Greenville, NC - Washington D.C.
Story
Tagline
Taking donations since 1981
Introduction
I am the CTO of Virante, Inc. Virante is a full service search marketing firm located in Research Triangle Park. I am also the primary author of TheGoogleCache.

I am married to the beautiful Morgan Jones. We live in Durham, NC with our dog Cooper and cat Wesley.
Education
  • UNC Chapel Hill
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Relationship
Married
This is our 3rd or 4th time using Leisure Landscapes. Paul Martin is a truly talented landscape designer and their team does incredible work. The first time we used them we had retaining walls, patio, modifications to a deck, flower beds and plantings, etc. done. We then later used them for all our lawn maintenance while we were out of town for 6 months. Now, we are using them to do the landscaping for our new house as well. Great work!
Public - 11 months ago
reviewed 11 months ago
22 reviews
Map
Map
Map