Kinky Sexy Stuff: Speaking in Columbus, Ohio, This June

The Space's logo, showing a circle of humanist logos around a red outline of a heart, and in small black wording around the outside the full name as stated in the article.PolyColumbus and The Columbus Space for Alternative Self Expression are hosting a new talk I’m giving this June 14th (Tuesday, 2016) at 7 – 9pm (Eastern time). The Space is located at 180 Outerbelt Street in Columbus.

I will be speaking on Polyamory, Kink, and Philosophy. I’ll be outlining the role and importance of philosophy in kink and poly life.

Topics will include:

  • What should philosophy have to say about ethical non-monogamy and kink?
  • What use does philosophy have for those pursuing either?
  • How can ordinary people become good philosophers?
  • And how can philosophy help them become better non-monogamists and explorers of kink?

From the epistemology of consent to the metaphysics of love and sex to, of course, moral theory, even politics and aesthetics, philosophy has a lot to do with polyamory and other modes of ethical non-monogamy and kink.

Note:

  • Snacks will be available for purchase. Please bring you own soft drinks.
  • All activities at The Columbus Space are open to those 19 and over only.
  • The Columbus Space is a drug and alcohol free zone.
  • Discounts for annual & lifetime members of PolyColumbus? See note here.
  • Get your tickets early; least year when I spoke, it was a packed house!

-:-

Defining the Supernatural vs. Logical Positivism

In working slowly through a gigantic backlog of blog comments, I met with one that goes back to an old school question, about my project to demarcate the natural and the supernatural. The comment by Enlightenment Liberal is here. He is asking questions about the conclusion I argued here and in print here (with a followup here). The first, Defining the Supernatural, supports the others, Defining Naturalism I and II. His perspective can be summarized as “If we grant your definitions of ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’, I think that all hypotheses of the form ‘X is supernatural’ entail absolutely zero observable predictions about the world,” in particular because “I think that I have absolutely no basis to conclude that there is any relation or correlation at all between the fundamental nature of things and the observable nature of things,” in accordance with Logical Positivism.

So, is he right? Let’s explore… [Read more…]

The God Impossible

Is the existence of God logically impossible? I used to be suspicious of arguments that attempted to prove that, because they were usually so lame, and easily rebutted (although some stick, depending on which “God” you are talking about: see my discussion of this in Sense and Goodness without God IV.2.4, pp. 275-77; and for some serious, but not always successful, attempts at building these kinds of arguments, see the anthology The Impossibility of God; some other examples are cataloged at the Secular Web; but a very interesting example, quite pertinent to today’s post, is Evan Fales’ Divine Intervention: Metaphysical and Epistemological Puzzles). Yesterday I blogged an ontological argument for the necessary existence of our universe without God (Ex Nihilo Onus Merdae Fit), and I had to stay on point there (it was long enough as is), but in developing that argument over the years I had already been thinking about one implication of it: if an infinite selection of all logically possible universes exists, then many of them will contain gods, if gods are logically possible. Today I cover that angle. [Read more…]

Ex Nihilo Onus Merdae Fit

A common argument against atheism is that the Big Bang proves everything had a beginning (it does not in fact prove that, but bear with me here), therefore there was once nothing, and ex nihilo nihil fit, “from nothing, comes nothing.” However, that latter premise is demonstrably false. And that spells death for theism and marvelous glory for atheism. And I don’t even mean in the Lawrence Krauss A Universe from Nothing sense, since he doesn’t actually mean “nothing” when he talks about nothing (a point I’ll get back to in a moment). No, I mean, even granting the theist’s premise that if there was no God, then there was once absolutely nothing, and therefore there cannot have been a universe, therefore the fact that we are here entails God exists, because our existence would be literally impossible otherwise. I am saying that even granting that premise, all those “therefores” don’t actually follow. They are complete non sequiturs. In fact, I am not just saying that; I’m even saying that the exact opposite is true, that when we grant that premise (the theist’s own premise!), then a whole shitload of stuff will necessarily exist. Huwah? Yeah. And not a pejorative load of shit. An actual shitload.

I’ve been asked to explain this so many times lately (going all the way back to Mike Licona in our second debate) that I’ve decided to blog it so I can just point people here (that’s kind of the reason for everything I write, really). [Read more…]