I always viewed Parmenides argument as more sophisticated than how Hallquist portrays it. It seems like Parmenides was arguing that even if an event has a cause, it would still involve something coming from nothing. If I move my hand I am making a state of my hand that did not exist before. In one moment my hand was not at point B, in the next it was.
Hallquist is a Hack. You might as well cite Kirk Cameron's critique
ReplyDeleteof evolution.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-incompetent-hack.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/03/unliterate-hallq.html
Read Hallquist's comments box.
ReplyDeleteAli is back. He is this Muslim dude who is a fan of TLS who I've seen before defend Feser's natural theology against Gnu critics.
It won't end well for Hallquist.
Meltdown in 5...4...3...2...
This critique was 4 years ago.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHallquist hasn't improved since then.
I always viewed Parmenides argument as more sophisticated than how Hallquist portrays it. It seems like Parmenides was arguing that even if an event has a cause, it would still involve something coming from nothing. If I move my hand I am making a state of my hand that did not exist before. In one moment my hand was not at point B, in the next it was.
ReplyDeletehttp://skepticalphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/08/parmenides-refutation-of-change.html