What are some good counter arguments against destiny?
As a Hard Determinist, I have obviously not come across any really convincing counter-arguments to “pre-destination,” especially nothing of the Free Will variety. I am, however, familiar with research in the area of Quantum Mechanics that supposedly supports the notion of true randomness. True randomness means that events are not subject to the laws of causality whatsoever and occur entirely unpredictably even if one has complete knowledge of a system. If such a thing exists, then it certainly contradicts the idea of destiny. If the elementary particles that comprise your neurons and ultimately your cognitive capacities are subject to pure randomness, then it is possible for you to make any of several choices at a given time, the opposite of destiny. This would also, however, mean that you have absolutely no control over these choices, and would likely produce very incoherent behavior. The lack of this incoherency, and the evidence of causal relations between events convinces me that such randomness does not exist, or somehow has no bearing on human choices, if it does exist. Thanks for the A2A, I hope this helps.
Is there a counter argument to the burden-of-proof argument atheists used against theists?
That is rather a difficult question in that it begs certain questions. Firstly, it is not entirely clear what you mean by ‘the burden of proof argument’. A bald assertion that theists ‘bear the burden of proof for *their* claims’ is really a statement rather than argument. However, to be fair, it does imply certain premises but, unfortunately, it is not clear what you think these may be… Let me try and construct the sort of ‘argument’, typical of an atheist, that I think you must mean:I do not currently believe in the existence of any god;I can only be persuaded to accept the existence of *anything* by being provided with actual evidence for its existence;Therefore, in order for me to accept your assertion that your god exists, *you* must convince me by providing some evidence (accordingly, *you* bear the burden of the proof of your claim).Now I am not sure you can properly construct a counter-argument to this…You can ‘answer’ the argument by discharging the burden and actually provide some evidence’. Beyond that, though, what can you say?Can you gainsay the first premise by asserting that the speaker *does* actually believe in one or more gods… I am sure you can see the futility and silliness of that.Can you say that the speaker, with respect to the second premise, that the speaker *can* in fact be persuaded other than upon evidence? Well, good luck with that one too.Now, with respect to the final concluding statement, some theists respond by saying that they ‘know’ god exists as a matter of faith, therefore ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ is not required.Well, sadly, all that does is assert that the theist in question feels he or she needs no evidence. It does not automatically mean that this must apply to an atheists who makes the above argument.Can you construct an argument that effectively establishes why I shouldn’t, or that *I* do not, require you to provide me with evidence for the things you claim in order to believe? I submit that is this also something at which you will fail so, ultimately, ‘No’, there is no ‘counter-argument’.
What is a good counter argument to a liberal who slams Fox news?
I have this annoying relative who is a liberal and won't shut up. He was trying to convince me not to watch fox news because it's biased. Whats a good way to get the message across that I like their reporting and that maybe I prefer their orientation to the liberal BS of ABC, NBC and, CBS?
What are some arguments I could use against gay marriage?
Hmm, here are some sites, because honestly I see no issues with gay marriage, so I couldn't tell you off the top of my head x) http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2010/0... http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex... http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_ma... http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/pdx/102351114.html
What are the best arguments against consequentialism and their counter arguments?
The best critique of Utilitarianism I've read was in The Individual and the Political Order by Bowie and Simon. The book itself is quite good and specifically the chapter on utilitarianism is quite impressive in its comprehensive analysis of the issues surrounding utilitarianism.Here are some of the issues it speaks to:1) De-prioritizes rights (overrides the Constitution and human rights)2) De-prioritizes virtue, ethics, and character (including honesty and keeping ones commitments)3) De-prioritizes justice and fairness.4) What is happiness? 5) How do you calculate the greatest good or the greatest number?6) We don't have enough knowledge7) Is act or rule utilitarianism better?8) Relationships and roles matter in ethics. Utilitarianism ignores it.Utilitarianism can end up being relativism in drag if we don't pay attention to the values we are maximizing.I think Rule Utilitarianism answers the vast majority of critiques of utiltiarianism. It is an integration of consequentialism and rights. It allows the establishment of principles that you can stick to like optimizing or maximizing rights as a general rule.