tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6725134901932984729..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: David Haines' Defense of Aquinas' First Way Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger3162125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52084033208601452122018-01-05T22:22:14.039-07:002018-01-05T22:22:14.039-07:00It seems that Prof Feser does not consider Strawdu...It seems that Prof Feser does not consider Strawdusty as the worst troll to visit his site.<br /><br />So why the frowny face?<br /><br /><b><br />His main problem, other than being ignorant and conceited, is he is way to prolific.<br /></b><br /><br /><i><br />Well, yes, that's precisely the point. I almost always tolerate even very obnoxious and moronic comments if it's just a matter of one or two here or there. But with this weirdo it's comment after comment after comment, followed by comment after comment by people responding to him, and before you know it it's turned into a pissing match and the thread is completely ruined. So I really have no choice but to ban him.<br /><br />Also, in fairness to SP, he was never as nasty or psychotic as this guy. And yet I had to ban SP because the sheer volume coupled with the stupidity was destroying threads. Evans is like SP without the charm. A fortiori...<br /><br />And as it is, this will be perhaps only the sixth or seventh time in almost ten years that I've banned someone. I don't do it that often. Someone really has to be seriously obnoxious to get me to do that. Maybe you didn't see as much of the really nasty crap he was posting as I did.</i>bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13693458535107743002017-12-31T20:16:23.338-07:002017-12-31T20:16:23.338-07:00Stardusty: "In the end he even deleted my re...Stardusty: "In the end he even deleted my responses to you and SteveK, even though they were long, on-point clear logical refutations of what you both said"<br /><br />This is an excellent example of why you get banned, and it can't be blamed on bloggers. Reading this and countless other posts with similar sentiment, the reader is left with no other possible impression than you present your opinions and assertions as proven facts, the likes of which others wallow in irrationality in their silly refusal to agree that you are always right. Someone with this attitude will accomplish nothing but creating animosity, which bloggers don't want fouling up the comments. And when you persist anyway, you earn the "troll" label every time. Then you blame everyone else for calling you out, and it's bye bye.<br /><br />On subjects in which debate continues to this day - whether free will exists, for example - there is shameless hubris in things like "A great many attempts have been made to put forth counter speculations to this clear and rather simple logic"<br /><br />Or "Another common flaw for those who wish to retain the incoherent notion of free will combined with an omniscient being"<br /><br />With an approach like this, you would spend less time typing by simply saying "I'm right and you're wrong if you disagree with me", because the message is inherently the same. These posts are not invitations to dialogue - obviously people who believe in free will do not think it logically incoherent, and a great many people more intelligent and knowledgeable than you hold that very position, so asserting its incoherence as a fact will make some people laugh at you and will make others mad at you, both of which will lead to nothing productive. Even those who agree with you in principle are generally left cringing at your approach.<br /><br />If you can't see the difference between "Another common flaw for those who wish to retain the incoherent notion of free will combined with an omniscient being" and "Another thing I find to be flawed with the notion of free will with an omniscient being is...", then it's no wonder you get banned everywhere and choose to blame the blogger. However, if you see the difference, continue to to assert your opinion as fact anyway, and still blame the blogger? Rather pathetic.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88970733679553369912017-12-31T20:09:35.418-07:002017-12-31T20:09:35.418-07:00@Strawdusty,
Your latest post is one big rant of ...@Strawdusty,<br /><br />Your latest post is one big rant of "childish emotions".<br /><br />When all the people you interact with all tell you that you are behaving badly, ignoring counter-arguments and merely repeating unsupported assertions either everyone else has a problem, or you do. Don't bother to resond, I know the conclusion you will arrive at.<br /><br />Just don't expect me to call a Wambulance for your tender feelings getting run over again (and again...and again...)<br /><br /><br />It's a hoot to see you praise Lennox, when we both know you would telling him you didn't believe he even has a PhD if you ever got to interact with him. Thanks for the laugh.<br /><br />If you want to reply to my post from Classical Theism, you can do it here.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10427148367332424272017-12-31T10:15:37.603-07:002017-12-31T10:15:37.603-07:00bmiller said...
" OK, now that I listened... bmiller said...<br /><br /> " OK, now that I listened to the video, I doubt that you did. "<br />2:42<br />https://youtu.be/_eUKqrVSrSc<br /><br /><br />"And so I decided on that day many years ago to get to know people who did not share my background who did not share my worldview, <b>and I've been doing it all my life</b><br /><br />He goes on to describe his public debates with atheists and other comments on the subject.<br /><br />See, Lennox is a real PhD at a major university who is actually seeking out truth. A man of character who welcomes engagement with those of opposing views.<br /><br />Feser sets the tone for his blog and attracts his ilk. Very much the opposite of Lennox Feser abhors a contrary view, particularly when the person with that contrary view is capable of articulating it, will not adopt the Feser view, and insists it is Feser who has things so very wrong, and can provide extensive logical argumentation to show the errors of Feser.<br /><br />That infuriates Feser. You can see in his responses how much it bothers him personally and emotionally. He even mentions the "trolls" on his blog as being a problem when being interviewed, and when he addressed me his words were obviously spitting with anger and frustration, even using symbols along the top row of the keyboard to express his feelings.<br /><br />How pathetic. Truly a tiny worm of a man, nothing much more the a petulant 16 year old emotionally.<br /><br />Finding it impossible to engage me successfully on the merits he simply deleted my posts and banned me. He attracts that sort, like Jeremy Taylor.<br /><br />Jeremy has no displayed capacity to engage me on the merits, at least a few folks made some half baked attempts, which of course I easily dismantled because A-T is just ancient mythology and erroneous physics that uses faulty reasoning and is held in high regard only by those with confirmation bias and a lack of logical argumentation skills.<br /><br />Toward the end Jeremy displayed the same sort of childish emotions as Feser, deleting more and more posts in an attempt to interrupt conversations thereby squelching them. Deleting my posts to him but publicly commenting on them anyhow.<br /><br />In the end he even deleted my responses to you and SteveK, even though they were long, on-point clear logical refutations of what you both said, or perhaps because of that, so I asked him if my ability to use rational argumentation to prove the errors in A-T frightened him so much that he felt he had to delete them even though they were clearly on point arguments, and that is when his emotions boiled over and he banned me, not being able to resist a parting shot of "major troll" which apparently provides some sort of personal rationalization for his lack of courage to do as Lennox has done all his life.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88484739146351679482017-12-30T19:25:15.381-07:002017-12-30T19:25:15.381-07:00OK, now that I listened to the video, I doubt that...OK, now that I listened to the video, I doubt that you did. You would find it "a horrid notion"<br /><br />You really aren't very good at attempting to appear sincere.<br /><br />But it's just you and me now. No need to pretend.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87164672984186955042017-12-30T18:23:21.010-07:002017-12-30T18:23:21.010-07:00Nevermind. I assume you mean the Lennox video reg...Nevermind. I assume you mean the Lennox video regarding Christmas.<br />Listening to it now.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68706100065649548932017-12-30T18:14:38.589-07:002017-12-30T18:14:38.589-07:00@Strawdusty,
Very true. Almost all blog owners ha...@Strawdusty,<br /><br /><b>Very true. Almost all blog owners have no tolerance for opposing views. </b><br /><br />From what I've seen, you haven't been banned for promoting opposing views, but for your bad behavior, inability to make sensible arguments, not interacting with with counter arguments and merely repeating your assertions ad infinitum. If you think that counts as rational argument, then that's most likely your problem.<br /><br /><b>Have you listened to the Lennox video Victor linked recently?</b><br /><br />Nope. Do you have the link?<br /><br /><b>He has spent a lifetime seeking out engagement with those who disagree. For a Feserite that is a horrid notion. Those who disagree are to be deleted and banned. Most blog owners share that view.</b><br /><br />I've been reading Feser's blog for a long time and he rarely bans anyone. Most people there are deep into philosophy and are interested in discussing the finer points. So when someone shows up who clearly doesn't have a background and behaves the way you did pretty much everyone gets annoyed. Pretty much the same way people on a math forum would be annoyed with someone claiming that math was wrong because irrational numbers are, well, irrational. That's how you came off.<br /><br /><b>" see from SteveK's response, that you had contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next"<br />More hilarity. You see from SteveK's post...funny.</b><br /><br />Wow! How could anyone not be impressed with that masterful show of logical prowess?<br />Are you high again? And you wonder why people can't see your genius. Go figure.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32951984131063699282017-12-30T17:04:56.681-07:002017-12-30T17:04:56.681-07:00"You've been banned on almost every blog ..."You've been banned on almost every blog site you've posted on for approximately the same reasons, regardless of the admin's worldview. This is not a conspiracy"<br />Very true. Almost all blog owners have no tolerance for opposing views. Feser particularly so, but feminists and other sorts of social justice warriors are much the same.<br /><br />"I didn't get you see if you merely repeated your assertions (again) before your reply was deleted"<br />Of course, Feserites have the capacity to delete, not rationally argue.<br /><br />Have you listened to the Lennox video Victor linked recently? He has spent a lifetime seeking out engagement with those who disagree. For a Feserite that is a horrid notion. Those who disagree are to be deleted and banned. Most blog owners share that view.<br /><br /><br /><br />" see from SteveK's response, that you had contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next"<br />More hilarity. You see from SteveK's post...funny.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30655318474119711512017-12-30T14:47:13.526-07:002017-12-30T14:47:13.526-07:00@Strawdusty,
Sounds like you're whining. But...@Strawdusty,<br /><br />Sounds like you're whining. But why get bent out of shape? For you it's par for the course.<br /><br />You've been banned on almost every blog site you've posted on for approximately the same reasons, regardless of the admin's worldview. This is not a conspiracy since those admins have little they can agree on. But it seems they all agree that you cannot make sensible arguments, behave badly and plug up the comment section by merely repeating the same assertions and not interacting with counter arguments. Maybe it's an amazing coincidence that they are all twerps, or maybe, just maybe .....it's you. 😵<br /><br /><b><br />Now that he has protected all his little sycophants from the big bad Stardusty Psyche you are safe to join the circle jerk of ancient superstitions without fear that a modern man will show your worldview to be erroneous on the rational merits.<br /><br />He he he<br /><br />ROTFLMAO<br /></b><br /><br />Another drunk post? A little crazy laughter? But incoherence is par for the course for you so, not surprised.<br /><br />I didn't get you see if you merely repeated your assertions (again) before your reply was deleted, but I see from SteveK's response, that you had contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next. Hard to tell if you only post while drinking or if you really can't keep a thought from one sentence to the next. If you want to repost here, I'll read it. But I'll probably be the only one.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27493220541539989362017-12-29T22:16:26.624-07:002017-12-29T22:16:26.624-07:00bmiller said...
" Just curious why you dec...bmiller said...<br />" Just curious why you decided to respond here to something he posted on a different and much more recent blog."<br /><br />Oh, but don't worry bmiller, little Jeremy will still invite you over for play dates :-)<br /><br />Now that he has protected all his little sycophants from the big bad Stardusty Psyche you are safe to join the circle jerk of ancient superstitions without fear that a modern man will show your worldview to be erroneous on the rational merits.<br /><br />He he he<br /><br />ROTFLMAOStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5883953413124666502017-12-29T21:02:26.101-07:002017-12-29T21:02:26.101-07:00bmiller said...
" But as you can tell, he... bmiller said...<br /><br />" But as you can tell, he hasn't posted here for quite a while.<br /><br /> Just curious why you decided to respond here to something he posted on a different and much more recent blog."<br /><br />Because Jeremy Taylor is a cowardly little twerp, like Edward Feser, both of whom have no demonstrated capacity to engage me on the merits.<br /><br />Both Jeremy Taylor and Edward Feser have only the skill needed to delete comments that challenge their worldviews on the merits.<br /><br />They are like children plugging their ears and shouting nah nah nah.<br /><br />I have answered both you and SteveK with very specific argumentation, but Jeremy Taylor is so immature that he uses his tiny petty power to delete comments, lest a contrary argument invade his little perception.<br /><br />His loss, and yours. You all could have learned some things from me. Too bad for you.<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30748639858426889662017-12-28T11:28:35.327-07:002017-12-28T11:28:35.327-07:00But as you can tell, he hasn't posted here for...But as you can tell, he hasn't posted here for quite a while.<br /><br />Just curious why you decided to respond here to something he posted on a different and much more recent blog.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30783133813297380502017-12-28T00:00:48.437-07:002017-12-28T00:00:48.437-07:00Inside joke, bmiller, SteveK knows his own words.Inside joke, bmiller, SteveK knows his own words.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80733676834499325102017-12-27T21:43:15.721-07:002017-12-27T21:43:15.721-07:00Been drinking again?
SteveK did made no such post...Been drinking again?<br /><br />SteveK did made no such post here.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83650219477258667282017-12-26T21:15:56.215-07:002017-12-26T21:15:56.215-07:00What's the matter, nobody had anything to say ...What's the matter, nobody had anything to say while I was an vacation?-)<br /><br />Just dropped by to say hey to SteveK<br /><br />@SteveK<br /> [b]Things that you failed to address:[/b]<br /><br />Actually these were all addressed in the post you used as a basis for your last few comments,<br /><br />Go back and read that post from beginning to end and you will have all your questions answered.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84454165340762404362017-12-04T11:37:08.255-07:002017-12-04T11:37:08.255-07:00@Strawdusty,
" There are no equations to pr...@Strawdusty,<br /><br /><b>" There are no equations to prove only matter exists. As I said before <i>Get back to me when you've found at least one.</i><br />"<br />--There are equations that describe how matter acts, demonstrating matter is real.</b><br /><br />This only proves (once again) you can't read. That and now you are demonstrating a new delusion that somehow all metaphysical theories must be mathematically formulated (except for your's of course).bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49519138042891473792017-12-03T07:58:33.988-07:002017-12-03T07:58:33.988-07:00bmiller said...
" There are no equations to ...bmiller said...<br /><br />" There are no equations to prove only matter exists. "<br />--There are equations that describe how matter acts, demonstrating matter is real.<br /><br />There are no equations for your hallucinatory "form" or "prime matter". Those are just in the imagination of people stuck in ancient mythological thinking.<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91269327894795392342017-12-02T20:32:03.740-07:002017-12-02T20:32:03.740-07:00@Strawdusty,
"" 1) What are the equati...@Strawdusty,<br /><br /><b><br />"" 1) What are the equations for theory that only material things exist? "<br />--You assert form and matter exist, yet you have no mathematical description of them.<br />" And you have provided exactly zero equations that only material things exist. "<br /><br />There are no equations to prove invisible unicorns do not exist. So what? Where are your equations that show something other than material does exist?</b><br /><br />It's Saturday night and you must be intoxicated again. There are no equations to prove only matter exists. As I said before <i>Get back to me when you've found at least one.</i><br /><br /><b>"E=mc² is not a conservation equation"<br />--Of course it is. Nothing gets in or out, hence the equal sign.</b><br /><br />Maybe it is to you. Not to scientists or mathematicians. Who in the world did you get this nonsense from?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65664178244034385622017-12-02T09:13:58.331-07:002017-12-02T09:13:58.331-07:00bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
""...bmiller said...<br /><br /> @Strawdusty,<br /><br /> "" 1) What are the equations for theory that only material things exist? "<br /> --You assert form and matter exist, yet you have no mathematical description of them.<br />" And you have provided exactly zero equations that only material things exist. "<br /><br />There are no equations to prove invisible unicorns do not exist. So what? Where are your equations that show something other than material does exist?<br /><br />"E=mc² is not a conservation equation"<br />--Of course it is. Nothing gets in or out, hence the equal sign.<br /><br />Where are your equations that describe this magical thing you call "form" and how it relates to so called "prime matter"?<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86509002716184684882017-11-25T21:12:07.483-07:002017-11-25T21:12:07.483-07:00@Strawdusty,
"" 1) What are the equatio...@Strawdusty,<br /><br /><b>"" 1) What are the equations for theory that only material things exist? "<br />--You assert form and matter exist, yet you have no mathematical description of them.<br /><br />I assert fields, particles, matter, and energy are valid representations of reality.<br />Here is and introduction to them<br />https://physics.info/standard/<br /><br />I can cite thousands of more sources in great detail. You cite zero.</b><br /><br />Well scientific theories depend on the philosophy of science as it's fundamental basis. And you have provided exactly zero equations that only material things exist. Get back to me when you've found at least one.<br /><br /><b>"2) It is of course a category mistake to attempt to use the methods of scientific investigation to examine the philosophy of science on which those very methods are based."<br />--Mine is the catagory of reality, yours is the catagory of arm waving fantasy, so I suppose you are correct that your fantasy does not belong in the catagory of reality.</b><br /><br />Your reasoning is based on circular logic. Therefore you have no rational basis for your conclusions. Pretty simple. You assume that the methods of science guide you to truth while ignoring that the methods of science are based on something more fundamental, the philosophy of science. You then end up denying the basis of science have thereby destroyed your rational basis to rely on science.<br /><br /><b>So material objects that do not exist interact with other material objects that do not exist to organize into material objects. Pure gibberish."<br />--Study crystal growth. Material organizes itself by natural forces. To find out how study science.</b><br /><br />You must mean I should study science fiction rather than science. Because in the study of science non-existent things do not organize themselves into existent things.<br /><br /><b>"So how exactly does e=mc² describe keeping existing material objects in existence? No hand waving now."<br />--There is no poof term. Material is conserved, not the organization of material objects. For that you will need to learn about atomic structure, chemistry, and molecular structural science.</b><br /><br />Of course there is no "proof term" because you have not even tried to provide a "proof". E=mc² is not a conservation equation any more than F=ma is.<br /><br /><b>You say the material we observe is made of form and matter. Where are your models, descriptions, and experiments that describe exactly how material and form are structured and how they act?</b><br /><br />Follow along now. Science as practiced in Western civilization since the Middle Ages has used the form/matter distinction as an axiom (whether explicitly or implicitly). This is a metaphysical assumption and a very fruitful one for civilization in the West. This was also known to the ancient Greeks, but it took Christianity and it's particular worldview to take this assumption and make *science* as we know it today.<br /><br />All "models, descriptions, and experiments" validate this. Let me know when you find differently.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18651334626237847122017-11-25T19:59:46.025-07:002017-11-25T19:59:46.025-07:00bmiller said...
" 1) What are the equati...bmiller said...<br /><br /><br />" 1) What are the equations for theory that only material things exist? "<br />--You assert form and matter exist, yet you have no mathematical description of them.<br /><br />I assert fields, particles, matter, and energy are valid representations of reality.<br />Here is and introduction to them<br />https://physics.info/standard/<br /><br />I can cite thousands of more sources in great detail. You cite zero.<br /><br />"2) It is of course a category mistake to attempt to use the methods of scientific investigation to examine the philosophy of science on which those very methods are based."<br />--Mine is the catagory of reality, yours is the catagory of arm waving fantasy, so I suppose you are correct that your fantasy does not belong in the catagory of reality.<br /><br />"<br />So material objects that do not exist interact with other material objects that do not exist to organize into material objects. Pure gibberish."<br />--Study crystal growth. Material organizes itself by natural forces. To find out how study science.<br /><br />"So how exactly does e=mc² describe keeping existing material objects in existence? No hand waving now."<br />--There is no poof term. Material is conserved, not the organization of material objects. For that you will need to learn about atomic structure, chemistry, and molecular structural science.<br /><br />No arm waving? Fine. Consult any of thousands upon thousands of scientific and engineering papers and experiments that have confirmed these findings again and again and again.<br /><br />You say the material we observe is made of form and matter. Where are your models, descriptions, and experiments that describe exactly how material and form are structured and how they act?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3352326951273142282017-11-25T19:32:12.983-07:002017-11-25T19:32:12.983-07:00@Strawdusty,
What are the equations of the theor...@Strawdusty,<br /><br /><b><br />What are the equations of the theory of form? <br />What are the equations of the theory of matter?<br />what is the mathematical relationship between motion, form, and matter? What are the units of motion, form and matter?</b><br /><br />1) What are the equations for theory that only material things exist? Where are the equations for the theory of logical positivism that you are implicitly invoking? Hint....it's as dead as the nehru jacket (and died about the same time).<br /><br />2) It is of course a category mistake to attempt to use the methods of scientific investigation to examine the philosophy of science on which those very methods are based.<br /><br /><br /><b><br />" Material objects do not cause themselves to come into existence"<br />--The material of objects does not cause itself to come into existence, but material interacts with other material to organize into recognizable objects.</b><br /><br />So material objects that do not exist interact with other material objects that do not exist to organize into material objects. Pure gibberish.<br /><br /><b>--Why not? What are the equations that describe this suicidal tendency of objects?</b><br />Yes. Thanks for agreeing with me.<br /><br /><b><br />--Why? What are the equations that quantify this maintenance?<br />--Why? What is the mathematical relationship between maintenance of existence and motion? In what units?</b><br /><br />See 1) above.<br /><br /><b>You have deduced nothing but arm waving, vague old superstitions. Where is your mathematical model for all of this?</b><br /><br />See 1) above. I know the difference between physics and metaphysics unlike you....Mr. deceased relatives apply a "particular amount" of force to moving sticks in the present that no one can calculate or measure.<br /><br /><b>" would see things popping out of existence with no explanation. We don't, so there must be another principle that sustains them in existence."<br />--Yes, it is called conservation of mass/energy. It is described by E=mcc. </b><br /><br />So how exactly does e=mc² describe keeping existing material objects in existence? No hand waving now.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86189298563548029282017-11-25T14:25:27.093-07:002017-11-25T14:25:27.093-07:00miller said...
" I can sense that there i...miller said...<br /><br />" I can sense that there is a existing material object that is a combination of form and matter."<br />--Do you have a form sensing nerve, like a sense of smell? How do you sense form? How do you sense matter? <br /><br />What is the theory of form? What are the equations of the theory of form? <br /><br />What is the theory of matter? What are the equations of the theory of matter?<br /><br />" The object moves due to it's combination of form and matter."<br />--How? Is it motion = form + matter? If not, what is the mathematical relationship between motion, form, and matter? What are the units of motion, form and matter?<br /><br />" Material objects do not cause themselves to come into existence"<br />--The material of objects does not cause itself to come into existence, but material interacts with other material to organize into recognizable objects.<br /><br />" and do not maintain themselves in existence as a combination of form and matter."<br />--Why not? What are the equations that describe this suicidal tendency of objects?<br /><br />" So whatever is responsible for maintaining them as that combination of form and matter is responsible for their existence"<br />--Why? What are the equations that quantify this maintenance?<br /><br />" and therefore their motion."<br />--Why? What is the mathematical relationship between maintenance of existence and motion? In what units?<br /><br /><br /><br />" Very simple and easily deduced from observation of existing material objects."<br />You have deduced nothing but arm waving, vague old superstitions. Where is your mathematical model for all of this?<br /><br /><br /><br />" would see things popping out of existence with no explanation. We don't, so there must be another principle that sustains them in existence."<br />--Yes, it is called conservation of mass/energy. It is described by E=mcc. <br /><br />No change in the amount of mass/energy means no changer is needed to explain no change.<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16285109928030344072017-11-25T13:37:07.358-07:002017-11-25T13:37:07.358-07:00@Strawdusty,
" Nonsense. I see materially ex...@Strawdusty,<br /><br /><b>" Nonsense. I see materially existing objects with my sense of sight."<br />--You deduce how an object exists and moves by its effects that produce, absorb, or reflect photons in the narrow visible band of electromagnetic radiation.<br /><br />" I smell materially existing objects with my sense of smell. etc."<br />--You deduce characteristics of an object by the motions of materials that leave that object, move through the air, and land on nerve cells.<br /><br />" We deduce that there is something called *gravity* from the way those existing material objects that we *do* sense behave."<br />--We deduce there is something called gravity by using our senses to observe objects.</b><br /><br />Humans have organs that directly sense odor and light. Humans do not have an organ that directly senses *gravity* any more than they have an organ that directly senses inertia, the number 42 or triangularity.<br /><br /><br /><b>" You are also hallucinating if you think anyone ever claimed that there was anything "pushing" an object in inertial motion."<br />--Pushing, pulling, changing, or in some way "put in motion by another"<br /><br />There is no "another" that is manifest and evident to our senses putting an object in uniform linear motion in its motion.</b><br /><br />I can sense that there is a existing material object that is a combination of form and matter. The object moves due to it's combination of form and matter. Material objects do not cause themselves to come into existence and do not maintain themselves in existence as a combination of form and matter. So whatever is responsible for maintaining them as that combination of form and matter is responsible for their existence and therefore their motion. Very simple and easily deduced from observation of existing material objects. It is indeed manifest and evident to our senses.<br /><br />The alternative is that non-existent things cause themselves to exist which is impossible because they would have to exist prior to coming into existence, which is absurd. If they were responsible for keeping themselves in existence or not, then we would see things popping out of existence with no explanation. We don't, so there must be another principle that sustains them in existence.<br /><br /><br /><b>A-T:<br />The ball looks like it is flying in uniform linear motion, but actually the ball is trying to to stop but another is putting it in motion in just the right way to make it look like there is no tendency for the ball to stop and there is no other putting the ball in motion.</b><br /><br /><br />Nonsense. Just another strawman.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33480168396382534182017-11-25T13:11:45.699-07:002017-11-25T13:11:45.699-07:00bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
" Peop...bmiller said...<br /><br /> @Strawdusty,<br /><br /> " People do not "sense" gravity. They perceive it's effects."<br /> --That is how all things are manifest and evident to our senses.<br /><br />" Nonsense. I see materially existing objects with my sense of sight."<br />--You deduce how an object exists and moves by its effects that produce, absorb, or reflect photons in the narrow visible band of electromagnetic radiation.<br /><br />" I smell materially existing objects with my sense of smell. etc."<br />--You deduce characteristics of an object by the motions of materials that leave that object, move through the air, and land on nerve cells.<br /><br />" We deduce that there is something called *gravity* from the way those existing material objects that we *do* sense behave."<br />--We deduce there is something called gravity by using our senses to observe objects.<br /><br />Aquinas deduced that objects move by using his senses to observe them. That is what makes motion, and all other deduced aspects of material objects manifest to us, sensory observations of them.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />" You are also hallucinating if you think anyone ever claimed that there was anything "pushing" an object in inertial motion."<br />--Pushing, pulling, changing, or in some way "put in motion by another"<br /><br />There is no "another" that is manifest and evident to our senses putting an object in uniform linear motion in its motion.<br /><br />If I push on an object then there is an "another" putting the object in motion, acceleration, which is a change in the kinetic energy of the object, calling for a changer, me. <br /><br />When I stop pushing on the object it continues in motion without another putting it in motion, because I stopped pushing on it, therefor there is no further change in its kinetic energy so acceleration ceases, and motion continues because uniform linear motion is no change in kinetic energy and therefore calls for no changer.<br /><br />To stop the object is an acceleration, typically expressed with a negative sign. If an object that is moving is caused to stop moving that is a change in its kinetic energy calling for a changer, say a catcher of a baseball.<br /><br />Science:<br />Pitcher accelerates the ball, pitcher is the changer, kinetic energy is transferred to the ball.<br />The ball flies in uniform linear motion (discounting air and gravity), no changer, no change in kinetic energy.<br />Catcher accelerates the ball (negatively), catcher is the changer, kinetic energy is transferred from the ball.<br /><br />A-T:<br />The ball looks like it is flying in uniform linear motion, but actually the ball is trying to to stop but another is putting it in motion in just the right way to make it look like there is no tendency for the ball to stop and there is no other putting the ball in motion.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.com