Legion: "We must live in different universes, because I have never seen a train moving without an engine."
So, per Stardusty's response to you, you deny inertia?
mkay.
Legion: "Of course, water freezes into ice in my universe, too. Perhaps you should visit, it's a fascinating place."
The implication being that Stardusty has denied that ice can be a state of water? That implication would be a lie.
So, is this what your defense of the First Way looks like, after all this? Non sequiturs, and lies about skeptics responses and positions? I realize that that is, per apologetics, a common tactic, but I was holding out hopes that you would rise above that.
Are you ever going to do what you said you would do? Actually defend the First Way from the criticisms offered, enumerating the many ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument?
Legion: "If you remove the engine, will the caboose sustain its movement?" Dusty: "Yes, of course, the caboose keeps rolling."
You've answered the wrong question. It keeps rolling due to inertia, yes. Will the same motion sustain itself continuously without the engine? No.
Dusty: "If it were a rocket engine in space then yes, the spacecraft keeps moving"
Here we ask the question Cal does not want to discuss. Does this sustained motion lack a causal force influencing the motion? Considering gravity is a causal force, the answer is no.
A body at rest has causes all around it that keep it at rest. Other things exist that work to keep it in a sustained state of rest. This is easily demonstrated by removing one or more things to create a causal imbalance.
What about a body in sustained motion? Do other things exist that work to keep it in a sustained state of motion, or is literally NOTHING required to sustain the motion? The skeptics say nothing is required - it moves by itself, needing no other thing, forever and ever - but I'm skeptical of that claim no matter how many times it is repeated.
Legion "Legion: "If you remove the engine, will the caboose sustain its movement?" Stardusty: "Yes, of course, the caboose keeps rolling." stevek: "You've answered the wrong question."
Nope. Stardusty answered THE question ("... will the caboose sustain its movement?")
You changed the question ("Will the SAME motion sustain itself CONTINUOUSLY...?) after Stardusty answered it.
Do apologists think every time they lie that it makes their beliefs seem like they're based on reality, or on lies?
Because I think it makes it seem like their beliefs are based on lying.
Which explains a lot, doesn't it? If you're defending a belief system that depends on denying reality, it makes sense that lying would be a comfortable tactic for defending this belief. It certainly explains the vast difference in the two approaches to analyzing the argument and its criticism undertaken by the two sides here so far.
stevek: "The skeptics say nothing is required - it moves by itself, needing no other thing, forever and ever - but I'm skeptical of that claim no matter how many times it is repeated."
Seriously? Why would you imagine that others care what an ignorant, stupid, and lying apologist misunderstands about physics?
The motion of the caboose is caused by the engine. The long, but fading motion of the caboose is due to the existence of the engine. Without an engine the long, but fading motion of the caboose could not exist.
(1) An engine is required for all motion (2) The absence of a currently present (now) engine will result in motion that is long and fading
(a) The universe is in motion, therefore (1) is the case (b) The ever-faster expanding motion of the universe is not showing itself to be long and fading, therefore (2) is not the present case (now) (c) Because (2) is not the case now, an engine is currently present
Cal: "So, per Stardusty's response to you, you deny inertia?"
The fact that it doesn't come to a full stop instantaneously does nothing to defeat the fact that the motion of the caboose cannot be sustained without something acting upon it. The caboose will without question come to a stop, because the motion cannot be sustained.
Cal: "The implication being that Stardusty has denied that ice can be a state of water?"
Stardusty has done everything but acknowledge that ice is a state of water. Quote where he said otherwise, because I recall nothing but appeals to quantum levels trying to deny that water in fact freezes into ice in anything but a rough macro approximation.
Cal: "So, is this what your defense of the First Way looks like, after all this? Non sequiturs, and lies about skeptics responses and positions?"
I love how skeptics think that if they assert things, those things are true.
Cal: "Are you ever going to do what you said you would do? Actually defend the First Way from the criticisms offered"
I've been doing so for 1800 posts now. Your failure to recognize that fact doesn't change reality.
I remain wholly unimpressed with puerile insults toward Christians and naked assertions. Show that the First Way is a bad argument without relying on bald assertions or fallacies (hint: typing "non sequitur" is not a valid criticism), and actually stay on topic. Because if this thread is supposed to show the superiority of skeptics to apologists, you have failed far beyond your ability to comprehend it.
Legion of Logic said... Stardusty: "Yes, of course, the caboose keeps rolling." " We must live in different universes," --Indeed it seems that way. I invite you to leave the universe of your Aristotelian imagination and enter the universe of modern science.
" because I have never seen a train moving without an engine" --I have. Railroad cars do in fact move without an engine connected at the time they are moving, either due to gravity or inertia. This is done in a classification yard and is called "humping".
Inertia is the more interesting reason in this context.
"Perhaps you should visit, it's a fascinating place." --Have you visited space? In space inertia is much more apparent and the errors of Aristotle you seem fixated on are obvious. The visible objects in our universe are in space. In between the molecules you breath is space.
Consider a train backing up at 50mph. Then the coupler to the caboose disconnects and the rest of the train slams on the brakes. Bye bye caboose, it's motion is sustained without an engine attached.
What do you suppose does this? Do angels continue to push the caboose? Do angels keep the Earth spinning on its axis? Perhaps angels nudge the Earth along in its orbit about the sun?
The motion of an object is self sustaining. In modern science that is called inertia.
" Do other things exist that work to keep it in a sustained state of motion, or is literally NOTHING required to sustain the motion?" --No additional force is required. No additional energy input is required.
On Earth there are always nearby objects to apply a slowing force. That is what led to the errors of Aristotle.
Aristotle did not understand the underlying mechanisms of what we observe as friction.
" The skeptics say nothing is required - it moves by itself, needing no other thing, forever and ever - but I'm skeptical of that claim no matter how many times it is repeated." --Skepticism is good, but I suggest you consider the evidence of our space program. This principle you are skeptical about is shown to be the case every time we send another probe to a distant planet.
If there is an error in the modern understanding of inertia it must be an infinitesimal error given the literally astronomical degree of accuracy to which these scientific facts have been demonstrated.
We know the motion involved an engine thus the FW is correct in identifying this fact of reality.
Dusty: "The motion of an object is self sustaining. In modern science that is called inertia"
Me: "Skeptics say nothing is required - it moves by itself, needing no other thing, forever and ever - but I'm skeptical of that claim no matter how many times it is repeated"
Legion: "The fact that it doesn't come to a full stop instantaneously does nothing to defeat the fact that the motion of the caboose cannot be sustained without something acting upon it."
Outside the friction of earth's atmosphere, satellites sustain their trajectory without something else acting upon it. Therefore, by the rules of logic, it is false that ALL things are moved by another (the satellite sustains its movement, even after the launch vehicle has stopped putting the satellite into motion), and thus, by the rules of argument, this version of the First Way fails.
An argument with an unsound premise is, by the rules of argument, a bad argument.
Legion: "Stardusty has done everything but acknowledge that ice is a state of water. Quote where he said otherwise, because I recall nothing but appeals to quantum levels trying to deny that water in fact freezes into ice in anything but a rough macro approximation."
mkay.
Stardusty: "Properties of sub quark level fields lead to the macro level observation we call "ice". "
You tried to fob that off as, "...trying to deny that water in fact freezes into ice...."
So, in apologetics land, increased precision and careful definition of terms somehow = denial . This is faulty thinking on your part. Faulty thinking stands in the way of arriving at rational beliefs. Faulty thinking is also, per the criticisms of the First Way enumerated here and the "defenses" offers so far, the only apparent way one could deny the problems in the First Way.
Me: "So, is this what your defense of the First Way looks like, after all this? Non sequiturs, and lies about skeptics responses and positions?" Legion: "I love how skeptics think that if they assert things, those things are true."
It's true (based on my prior citations) that there have been non sequiturs and lies. So, those things are, by the rules of argument, true. Also, I asked you a question, which (although it did contain premises, which are based on my prior citations), is not an assertion per se.
Me: ""Are you ever going to do what you said you would do? Actually defend the First Way from the criticisms offered"" Legion: "I've been doing so for 1800 posts now. Your failure to recognize that fact doesn't change reality."
mkay.
Legion: "Show that the First Way is a bad argument without relying on bald assertions or fallacies (hint: typing "non sequitur" is not a valid criticism), and actually stay on topic."
A non sequitur is a valid criticism for a defense of an argument that does not address the failing revealed by the criticism.
I have repeatedly (and repeatedly) asked you to stay on topic, and resume what you said you would do. You don't seem capable of following through.
Legion: "Because if this thread is supposed to show the superiority of skeptics to apologists, you have failed far beyond your ability to comprehend it."
Dusty, >> "This principle you are skeptical about is shown to be the case every time we send another probe to a distant planet"
No it doesn't. There exists heat, energy, magnetism, gravity, expanding space, black holes, etc, etc - many other things that serve to sustain an existing motion.
To demonstrate that you are correct you'd need to SHOW that no existing thing sustains a motion. All you've done is assumed that is the case.
Legion of Logic said... Cal: "So, per Stardusty's response to you, you deny inertia?" " The fact that it doesn't come to a full stop instantaneously does nothing to defeat the fact that the motion of the caboose cannot be sustained without something acting upon it. " --Just the opposite is the case.
The motion of the caboose will be sustained indefinitely unless something acts upon it to stop it.
"The caboose will without question come to a stop, because the motion cannot be sustained." --No. The caboose comes to a stop because the self sustaining motion of the caboose is acted against.
It doesn't stop because it needs force to sustain motion. It stops because force is applied to stop it.
People thinking like you are why Aristotelian physics was accepted for some 2000 years. It seems to make so much sense, yet it is so fundamentally wrong.
The >> "It doesn't stop because it needs force to sustain motion."
This is a theory that lacks verification. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're welcome to believe in sort of magic, just don't claim science has observed the absence of ANY force acting to sustain motion when it has not.
Stardusty: "People thinking like you are why Aristotelian physics was accepted for some 2000 years. It seems to make so much sense, yet it is so fundamentally wrong."
Show me a train in space for us to study, and I'll concede you have a point. Otherwise, you're attacking a strawman. On Earth, which has 100 percent of all known trains, a caboose will most certainly come to a halt unless its motion is sustained by something else. And this sustaining force is what is being discussed in the First Way.
Cal: "Outside the friction of earth's atmosphere, satellites sustain their trajectory without something else acting upon it."
Let's say for the sake of argument that there is no property of mass that inertia is dependent upon (which I don't actually believe) - if something moving under inertia literally moved without being contingent upon anything at all, then it is part of an accidentally ordered series, whereas the First Way covers essentially ordered series in which the cause is sustaining the effect. Either way, this objection does not harm the First Way.
Cal: "mkay"
Glad you agree.
Legion: "I recall nothing but appeals to quantum levels trying to deny that water in fact freezes into ice in anything but a rough macro approximation."
Cal (quoting Stardusty): "Properties of sub quark level fields lead to the macro level observation we call "ice"
Yes, that is what I said. Thank you for supporting me. Also, there's this.
Legion: "does water freeze into ice?"
Stardusty: "--From the viewpoint of a human being, yes."
Notice the avoidance of simply saying "yes". If you call this being more precise, then there's really nothing else to be said. In my universe, though, water freezes into ice.
Cal: "A non sequitur is a valid criticism for a defense of an argument that does not address the failing revealed by the criticism."
An accusation of a non sequitur is a bald assertion that can be ignored unless the non sequitur is pointed out specifically so it can be addressed. There are too many posts for me to try and figure out what you're talking about. Throwing out a list of fallacies is not a criticism.
Cal: "I have repeatedly (and repeatedly) asked you to stay on topic, and resume what you said you would do."
You proved yourself unable to follow along, so why should I continue doing something that is completely futile? The whole point was for you to grasp each premise so the point of the next premise would be understood, and you never even grasped the first few premises.
Cal: "You make yourself appear delusional."
No one with a grasp on reality would agree with you. See how easy baseless assertions are to refute? That's why I ask you to stop making them, and actually back up your assertions.
Legion: "Show me a train in space for us to study, and I'll concede you have a point."
Okay.
https://theskylive.com/voyager1-tracker
Legion: "On Earth, which has 100 percent of all known trains, a caboose will most certainly come to a halt unless its motion is sustained by something else."
At this point, I have to say that you are being willfully ignorant.
Legion: "And this sustaining force is what is being discussed in the First Way."
Which is an unsound understanding of how motion occurs, which in turn makes that version of the First Way fail, by the rules of argument.
I think I'm done explaining this. Willful ignorance is beyond even my powers to fix.
" In response to claims about science it is reasonable to ask what has science demonstrated. That is the true stance of apologists everywhere." --It is also the stance of "true" scientists.
Science is self consciously and acutely self aware of its own provisional nature, or at least it "should" be.
Any scientist who fails to apply that fundamental skepticism to himself/herself has missed out on a core of science "properly" done.
I can only applaud any person who questions all our most fundamental notions of anything and everything. All I ask is that you examine the evidence that has in fact been gained in conjunction with scientific theory, scientific fact, and what those things mean.
Jay Gould has a classic work on the subject. Most atheists disagree with his assertion of separate magisteria, but he discusses fact versus theory, in this case as it applies to evolution, but the principles remain throughout science. http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Stardusty: "People thinking like you are why Aristotelian physics was accepted for some 2000 years. It seems to make so much sense, yet it is so fundamentally wrong."
" Show me a train in space for us to study, and I'll concede you have a point. " --Every train, like everything else, is in space. Our atmosphere is mostly empty space. What is called near space is also just as validly called upper atmosphere, even though satellites can orbit there for years without any further propulsion.
The difference is a matter of quantity, not quality.
"Otherwise, you're attacking a strawman. On Earth, which has 100 percent of all known trains, a caboose will most certainly come to a halt unless its motion is sustained by something else." --No, 100% of all known trains will sustain their motion indefinitely unless acted upon by a braking force.
The braking force of the surrounding fluid (air) and the braking force of the bearing friction, and the braking force of the wheel to track friction are all well known, studied, modeled, and measured forces.
These braking forces stop the train.
Since those braking forces are not sufficient for practical railroad operations braking mechanisms are designed into the train to act against the natural tendency of the train to sustain motion.
The locomotive engineer, or driver, is well aware of the sustained motion of the train. Spotting a car on the tracks ahead while at speed is a terrible experience for any train driver, knowing that the motion of the train is sustained unless enough braking force can be applied. Unfortunately, even with maximum braking effort the nature of sustained motion is such that the engineer cannot stop the train in time, hence the collision and likely loss of life.
" And this sustaining force is what is being discussed in the First Way." --Hence a fundamental error of Aquinas and all those who still cling to his long discredited notions.
Legion: “Let's say for the sake of argument that there is no property of mass…”
Mass is a property.
Legion: “… that inertia is dependent upon (which I don't actually believe)…”
What? Inertia is a description of how objects behave regarding changes to their motion. An objects mass is related (in a linear way) to its inertia.
Legion: “…if something moving under inertia…”
Things don’t move “under inertia.” Things move. Inertia describes that things resistance to changes in its motion.
Legion: “…literally moved without being contingent upon anything at all…”
Inertia is about contingency — inertia describes, in amazingly accurate ways, the exact amount of force required to alter an object’s current state of motion. An object’s change in motion is contingent on that object’s mass and its current state of motion. That is inertia.
Legion: “…then it is part of an accidentally ordered series, whereas the First Way covers essentially ordered series in which the cause is sustaining the effect. Either way, this objection does not harm the First Way.”
By falsely distinguishing between objects that do and do not have inertia, this version of the First Way fails because all objects have inertia. Because there is variety in the kinds of friction that objects may encounter doesn’t change the observed fact that all objects have inertia.
Legion:"Show me a train in space for us to study, and I'll concede you have a point. Otherwise, you're attacking a strawman. On Earth, which has 100 percent of all known trains, a caboose will most certainly come to a halt unless its motion is sustained by something else. And this sustaining force is what is being discussed in the First Way."
"Otherwise, you're attacking a strawman. On Earth, which has 100 percent of all known trains, a caboose will most certainly come to a halt unless its motion is sustained by something else."
--No, 100% of all known trains will sustain their motion indefinitely unless acted upon by a braking force.
See the italicized portions. You just agreed with Legion.
Whatever it is that is sustaining motion in any particular case of a moving material thing is the topic of the First Way.
@Legion It's called distraction. The train example demonstrates the FW so instead of dealing with that they say "look over here!!" to avoid dealing with the uncomfortable conclusion.
@Legion, The thing is, whatever is moving the train - it too is being subjected to the braking forces that the train is subject to - which means whatever is moving the train is slowing down just like the train is. Nothing in the equation is without a braking force so why bring it up?
Legion: "So now I'm willfully ignorant for believing that a moving caboose on Earth will come to a halt if there is no sustaining force moving it."
Nope. You appear willfully ignorant because you don't seem to know about inertia, friction, spacecraft, satellites, and vast array of demonstrations of these concepts and objects, as well as their implications to the simplistic concept of physics you are touting.
You appear willfully ignorant because you seem to believe that your example of a train overrides the more sophisticated and precise description of all the physical forces involved, and that are more accurately described by modern physics.
You seem willfully ignorant because you seem to think that a pushing force is needed to maintain inertia, when it's long been understood that friction is the (opposing) pushing force that operates on an object's inertia. (This concept shouldn't blow your mind, but somehow it seems to have.)
You seem willfully ignorant because rather than do the difficult work of painstakingly defining your terms and carefully analyzing the First Way, which you had earlier vowed you would do, you seem content to avoid this task and retain your mistakes above.
Legion: "An accusation of a non sequitur is a bald assertion that can be ignored unless the non sequitur is pointed out specifically so it can be addressed."
I thought this should have been obvious.
You had said,
Legion: "Of course, water freezes into ice in my universe, too. Perhaps you should visit, it's a fascinating place."
This was a non sequitur because, for reasons I had already explained, Stardusty doesn't actually deny that ice is a macro-approximation. As I pointed out, Stardusty had said,
Stardusty: "Properties of sub quark level fields lead to the macro level observation we call "ice."
it DOESN'T FOLLOW (that is what non sequitur means) that one should surmise that Stardusty thinks he occupies a universe where one does not make the macro level observation for what we call "ice." One could surmise this from his words, where he acknowledges the existence of what we call "ice."
In the case above, a non sequitur is probably the kindest way I could characterize what you written. Other terms, like misrepresentation and strawmanning were probably more apt.
Skeptic: You obviously know nothing of the digestive system, how the stomach, intestines, or kidneys work, let alone the importance of helpful bacteria. Nor do you seem aware of modern food production and distribution methods, or the functionality of indoor plumbing.
Apologist: What the hell?
Skeptic: Just admit how ignorant you sound saying you have to "go to the bathroom".
"Yes, from a certain point of view" is different than "yes". I asked if water froze into ice and was not told "yes". I correctly pointed out that I was given a huge runaround about quantum mechanics, which is not "yes".
Legion: "Yes, from a certain point of view" is different than "yes". I asked if water froze into ice and was not told "yes". I correctly pointed out that I was given a huge runaround about quantum mechanics, which is not "yes". "
I think the above statement from Legion sums up a position of willful ignorance quite nicely.
Willfully Ignorant: "I asked a question, and was given a careful, precise answer that made things seem complicated and hard. So I misrepresented what I read and investigated no further."
" a moving caboose on Earth will come to a halt if there is no sustaining force moving it." --"sustaining force" is not a real variety of force.
There is just "force". Motion continues as it is until a force is applied, then motion changes.
It doesn't matter what the object is composed of, what the shape of the object is, or where the object is located with respect to our planet.
Forces do not come in varieties of sustaining force or non-sustaining force as a realization external to human thought.
You can imagine that all the braking forces on a train have a magnitude of X. Then you can imagine force in the opposite direction with the same magnitude and you can label that force "sustaining" if that somehow helps you solve some sort of force calculation problem.
The danger in that sort of labeling is to then extrapolate your mere label of computational convenience to be some sort of universal truth that there must therefore be some kind of universal sustaining force, imagining that motion somehow needs a force to sustain it.
Motion does not have a general need for a sustaining force. In some environments there are objects present to impart a braking force on other moving objects.
How does any of this basic physics somehow argue for god in any way?
" Temporal origins: not a good criticism. When a specific act occurs is not relevant to the argument." --Right. It was a couple folks here that claimed a first mover could somehow not have imparted the first motion in the past, a preposterous assertion.
" Newton: not a good criticism. Things that tend to stay in motion are put in motion by another. This is consistent with the FW argument." --Indeed, what imparted the first motion, so very long ago? Or were the things in the universe always moving?
To for X to change Y it is necessary that X also change. So that leads to several possibilities, all of which are irrational.
" Modern science: not a good criticism." --When proposed solutions contradict modern science then modern science becomes a good criticism, although I agree, simply blurting out "because...science!" is not specific enough.
I am not here to tell you I have the answer to this great existential riddle. I am here to tell you that you do not have the answer, Aquinas did not express the answer, and no answer has ever been shown to be the case or even logically sound.
@Strawdusty, --Right. It was a couple folks here that claimed a first mover could somehow not have imparted the first motion in the past, a preposterous assertion.
" This is simply false. No one has made such a claim." --Very well then, since the first mover necessarily imparted the first motion in the past the First Way must necessarily refer to past events.
--Very well then, since the first mover necessarily imparted the first motion in the past the First Way must necessarily refer to past events.
At last we agree.
Sorry. In order for the First Way to be referring to past events, it would have to use verbs that imply past action. Since it doesn't, then it cannot be referring to past events. If you think it does use verbs implying past action then please point them out.
The First Way simply does not address what you claim it does.
bmiller: "Sorry. In order for the First Way to be referring to past events, it would have to use verbs that imply past action."
False. On many levels.
1. I am happier today. The above is a sentence that uses the first person present tense of the verb to be. And it ineluctably refers to past (as well as current events).
2. The First Way is about motion in the present, and motion in the present is IMPOSSIBLE without a prior (past) reference frame.
3. No amount of grammar changes the requirement that a premise be sound. If that were not the case, time travel would be possible by simply writing in the future tense.
1. I am happier today. The above is a sentence that uses the first person present tense of the verb to be. And it ineluctably refers to past (as well as current events).
Your sentence looks incomplete. I am happier today than you. This is a present tense statement. I am happier today than I was yesterday. This is a mixed tense statement. Mixed tenses are not found in the First Way.
2. The First Way is about motion in the present, and motion in the present is IMPOSSIBLE without a prior (past) reference frame.
Instaneous velocity is about motion in the present and you won't pass a physics course without understanding it. Your speedometer indicates the instaneous speed of your vehicle and the officer will still give you that ticket regardless of what your vehicle did in the past.
3. No amount of grammar changes the requirement that a premise be sound. If that were not the case, time travel would be possible by simply writing in the future tense.
Sure, but you need to understand the grammar to understand the argument. The First Way is about the simultaneous motion of an essentially ordered series happening in the present and the first mover of that type of series. It's not about a "first mover" that somehow started a series of time sequential events stretching back to the ancient past because, for one reason, Aristotle thought there was no "first mover" in that sense. He thought that the motion of the universe was eternal, did not have a temporal beginning and therefore would have no such "first mover".
" Instaneous velocity is about motion in the present and you won't pass a physics course without understanding it. " --You obviously do not understand that instantaneous velocity is an abstraction since velocity is distance/time. If time is zero velocity is undefined.
"Your speedometer indicates the instaneous speed of your vehicle" --You obviously do not understand that either. In a modern car velocity is calculated by an on board computer that samples distance measurements over short periods of time, performs the distance/time calculation, and displays it.
The shallowness of your analysis indicates you are either ignorant, or dishonest, or both.
--You obviously do not understand that instantaneous velocity is an abstraction since velocity is distance/time. If time is zero velocity is undefined.
Well this response indicates an ignorance of undergraduate physics as well as the prerequisite calculus courses. I guess Khan Academy can't even help you.
"Your speedometer indicates the instantaneous speed of your vehicle" --You obviously do not understand that either. In a modern car velocity is calculated by an on board computer that samples distance measurements over short periods of time, performs the distance/time calculation, and displays it.
Yes, that's how instantaneous speed is approximated. The faster the sampling rate, the more accurately it measures instantaneous speed.
The shallowness of your analysis indicates you are either ignorant, or dishonest, or both.
There is another possibility. I've heard of calculus ☺
--You obviously do not understand that instantaneous velocity is an abstraction since velocity is distance/time. If time is zero velocity is undefined.
The shallowness of your analysis indicates you are either ignorant, or dishonest, or both.
" There is another possibility. I've heard of calculus ☺" --Calculus is an abstraction, duh.
Yep, textbook failure to comprehend what is written. "It's from a Christian, and I'm not able to comprehend the subject matter, and Stardusty disagrees and he's a skeptic, so obviously Stardusty must be right, since he's a skeptic. Thus the Christian is wrong, and I will tell him so, despite my inability to demonstrate it."
" There is another possibility. I've heard of calculus ☺" --Calculus is an abstraction, duh.
Average velocity defined by dividing distance by time is math used to describe motion and so is also an abstraction. Calculus is just the correct math to use in physics. Do you think that physics does not deal in abstractions?
Stardusty: ""sustaining force" is not a real variety of force."
This is not relevant in any possible way, and highlights the dangers of relying strictly on scientific terms when describing reality in every single context.
English is a language, and in language, words mean things. To sustain is to provide what is needed for something or someone to exist, continue, etc. (Merriam-Webster definition). Thus, any force that does the above for something else is a sustaining force. There are exactly zero forces that provide what is needed for something or someone to exist, continue, etc, that are not sustaining forces.
I'm baffled by you and Cal continuously throwing scientific concepts at us, like inertia. When I say "a caboose on Earth will not continue moving without a sustaining force", throwing inertia at me makes you look ridiculous. There isn't a single reason for either of you to believe I don't understand inertia, other than perhaps anti-religious prejudice clouding your opinion of me from the start. In conversation with reasonable people, I should not be forced to say "A caboose on Earth will not continue moving without a sustaining force, though I know that the caboose would move because of inertia except it's being acted upon by friction so it slows down, and I also know that a sustaining force is not actually a type of force in scientific literature, so forget I said sustaining force because there is just force." That's ridiculous.
Nothing in my statement about the caboose ignores anything demonstrated by science. The caboose WILL stop without a sustaining force, and that's simply a fact.
Legion: "It's from a Christian, and I'm not able to comprehend the subject matter...
Don't blame your inability to form a reasoned defense of the First Way on my comprehension; our comments here have demonstrated that it is those who fail to recognize the ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument who are failing to comprehend.
Legion: "...and Stardusty disagrees and he's a skeptic, so obviously Stardusty must be right, since he's a skeptic."
The problems with the First Way are found with the First Way, as analyzed using the rules of good argument. They are independent of the argument's promoters ad detractors. The (unflattering) explanations I have offered for apologists handwaving and obstinacy here are a secondary discussion -- but one that I have earned by pointing out the (many) ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument, and the apologists failure to absorb and acknowledge these inconvenient facts.
Legion: "Thus the Christian is wrong, and I will tell him so, despite my inability to demonstrate it."
You abandoned your "defense" halfway through the argument. The inability in this discussion appears to lie solely with you.
@Cal You abandoned the conversation that you agreed to participate in with Legion. He wanted to go through the FW argument with you line by line so you could understand it. You agreed. You then abandoned the goal of understanding n favor of argument
It's your decision. Do you want Legion to continue with helping you understand the FW?
Telling the person helping you understand, 'you're deluded', is not part of the process of gaining a better understanding. Students ask questions and listen. Class isn't over yet and Cal is arguing with the teacher, calling him names and ridiculing him. I don't blame Legion for stopping what he was attempting to do.
stevek: "You abandoned the conversation that you agreed to participate in with Legion."
False. I have participated this whole time. (Why is everything you write a lie?)
stevek: "He wanted to go through the FW argument with you line by line so you could understand it."
He said he would go through it line by line to defend it from the criticisms offered. He stopped soon after starting. I understand the argument better than Legion (who's understanding of the argument is apparently so shallow that the failings are not yet evident to him), and as evidence I point you to my criticisms. Sic.
stevek: "You agreed. You then abandoned the goal of understanding n favor of argument."
I pointed out problems in his definitions, and asked for more clarity. Sometimes Legion provided more clarity, then he simply stopped. I asked him on multiple times to continue with his definitions (and that the problems I had pointed out earlier could wait), but he still abandoned.
Those are facts.
stevek: "It's your decision. Do you want Legion to continue with helping you understand the FW?"
I have said on multiple occasions that Legion should continue with his definitions and defense of the argument.
I don't know what the hold up is, but I can guess.
Stardusty: ""sustaining force" is not a real variety of force."
" This is not relevant in any possible way, and highlights the dangers of relying strictly on scientific terms when describing reality in every single context." --I said one can label it "sustaining" if that is convenient for some calculation.
" To sustain is to provide what is needed for something or someone to exist, continue, etc. (Merriam-Webster definition). Thus, any force that does the above for something else is a sustaining force." --That is what fooled Aristotle and much of humanity for some 2000 years. So, one can apply that language, but there is some risk that in doing so one will slip back to the errors of Aristotle.
" I'm baffled by you and Cal continuously throwing scientific concepts at us, like inertia. When I say "a caboose on Earth will not continue moving without a sustaining force", throwing inertia at me makes you look ridiculous." --The point is to make clear that Aristotle was wrong. The fact is that motion sustains itself in the sense that objects naturally keep moving unless acted upon to change motion.
" There isn't a single reason for either of you to believe I don't understand inertia," --Anyone who subscribes to A-T thought is highly suspect as an individual who does not fully understand such basic notions as inertia. Perhaps you do, but when you speak of "sustaining force" that at least sounds a great deal like A-T physics, which was ignorant of inertia.
" I should not be forced to say "A caboose on Earth will not continue moving without a sustaining force, though I know that the caboose would move because of inertia except it's being acted upon by friction so it slows down, and I also know that a sustaining force is not actually a type of force in scientific literature, so forget I said sustaining force because there is just force." That's ridiculous." --Is it? I for one do not object to parsing words down to precise meanings. This becomes all the more important when analyzing an argument that suffers from a paucity of words and was formed in the context of a Aristotelian world view.
" Nothing in my statement about the caboose ignores anything demonstrated by science. The caboose WILL stop without a sustaining force, and that's simply a fact." --Not in the Aristotelian sense, no, it won't.
You are defending an A-T argument. The first word in A-T is Aristotelian. Then you choose to speak of a "sustaining force". That gives me very good reason to suspect that you do not understand basic physics.
Perhaps you do understand basic physics, and perhaps you reject the physics of A-T, and perhaps you have reassigned the term "sustaining" to mean "counterbalancing the force of friction". But it sounds a great deal like you still have some notion of a divine sustaining force.
Do you suppose there is a divine sustaining force that is evidenced by the need of objects to be pushed along, as it were, in order to sustain their motion? You seem to be interpreting Aquinas as arguing for just that.
" Telling the person helping you understand, 'you're deluded', is not part of the process of gaining a better understanding." --That presupposes the individual is not deluded. The human brain is highly segmented. One may be highly rational in some respects and also be deluded in other respects.
" Students ask questions and listen. Class isn't over yet and Cal is arguing with the teacher," --This presupposes that the teacher is actually more qualified on the subject than the student. Evidence here shows that frequently is not the case.
Cal: "Don't blame your inability to form a reasoned defense of the First Way on my comprehension; our comments here have demonstrated that it is those who fail to recognize the ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument who are failing to comprehend."
This assertion does not reflect reality, but nonetheless you continue to believe it. Not very skeptical of you.
Cal: "I understand the argument better than Legion"
This is very clearly false, and as evidence, I point to your criticisms.
Also, your descriptions of my motives for stopping with my attempts at the line by line approach have no resemblance to any facts. I stated very clearly why I stopped.
Legion: "To sustain is to provide what is needed for something or someone to exist, continue, etc. (Merriam-Webster definition). Thus, any force that does the above for something else is a sustaining force."
Stardusty: "That is what fooled Aristotle and much of humanity for some 2000 years"
How was Aristotle fooled by the truth? If a force matches the definition of sustaining something, then it is a sustaining force based on word definitions and the relationships between adjectives and nouns in language. Are you denying that words mean things?
Stardusty: "The fact is that motion sustains itself in the sense that objects naturally keep moving unless acted upon to change motion."
This is not a meaningful objection to anything I've said, which is why I said I was baffled that you two keep doing things like this.
Stardusty: "Perhaps you do, but when you speak of "sustaining force" that at least sounds a great deal like A-T physics, which was ignorant of inertia."
So you are denying the concept of an engine overcoming friction and keeping a caboose moving? Because the engine is the sustaining force for the caboose's motion in this circumstance.
Stardusty: "Is it?"
Yes, it is. See my post from June 24 at 8:55, and see if you get my point from that parody conversation.
Stardusty: "Not in the Aristotelian sense, no, it won't."
Please identify the sense in which a caboose decoupled from an engine will continue its movement without a sustaining force. A caboose floating around in space is a strawman, so let's keep it to the 100 percent of cabooses that are on Earth.
Stardusty: "That gives me very good reason to suspect that you do not understand basic physics."
No, it doesn't. All these posts from you and Cal about how I don't understand this or that about science, and every one of them has been proven false. I wonder why you keep trying?
Stardusty: "perhaps you have reassigned the term "sustaining" to mean "counterbalancing the force of friction""
If there was nothing to counterbalance against, it would not be sustaining. There was nothing "reassigned".
Stardusty: "Do you suppose there is a divine sustaining force that is evidenced by the need of objects to be pushed along, as it were, in order to sustain their motion?"
At some level, perhaps. If not, then the First Way would just be a useless little curiosity from yonder years. I'm waiting for that actual refutation.
" How was Aristotle fooled by the truth?" --That is actually a very important and fascinating question. Answering that question is key to developing and practicing a sound scientific method.
Is it not true that the sun rises in the East, arcs across the sky, and then sets in the West? Is it not true that we are plainly, evidently, and obviously stationary as the sun moves?
Indeed, how are humans fooled by truth, and what can we do to not be fooled any longer?
Stardusty: "Not in the Aristotelian sense, no, it won't."
" Please identify the sense in which a caboose decoupled from an engine will continue its movement without a sustaining force." --Palpably it does continue without a sustaining force, this is known as "coasting".
" A caboose floating around in space is a strawman," --Every caboose is in space. We are not out of space, we simply have a great deal of nearby company with us in space.
We do not have one sort of physics on the surface of our planet, and another sort of physics out in interplanetary space. There is only one sort of physics that is everywhere.
Stardusty: "perhaps you have reassigned the term "sustaining" to mean "counterbalancing the force of friction""
" If there was nothing to counterbalance against, it would not be sustaining. There was nothing "reassigned"." --That is not what Aristotle supposed. He was so convinced that the natural state of an object is rest that he imagined a continual sustaining force applied to an object such as a stone thrown through the air.
Stardusty: "Do you suppose there is a divine sustaining force that is evidenced by the need of objects to be pushed along, as it were, in order to sustain their motion?"
" At some level, perhaps." --My concerns thus justified.
" If not, then the First Way would just be a useless little curiosity from yonder years." --So, if motion can continue on its own without a sustaining force at any level then the First Way is useless.
The First Way is useless by your own words, in that case.
" I'm waiting for that actual refutation." --Inertia.
First law: In an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.[2][3] Second law: In an inertial reference frame, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma. (It is assumed here that the mass m is constant - see below.) Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Now, I actually object to the use of the word "law". These are principles, models, descriptions.
You are aware, I am sure, that these principles have been verified extensively and are used daily in many sorts of engineering of things that demonstrably work.
You may also be aware that Newton too was wrong in certain details, as Einstein demonstrated.
Our interplanetary probes decisively demonstrate, using our own mechanical constructions launched across billions of miles, that motion is fundamentally self sustaining.
Thus the First Way is indeed just "a useless little curiosity from yonder years".
Teacher Legion: "Today class I'm going to help you understand the FW argument. It's a metaphysical argument about the nature of being."
Student Cal: "It's a physics argument you idiot"
Teacher Legion: "Would you like to understand this metaphysical argument?"
Student Cal: "It's a physics argument. Typical apologist nonsense. Science!"
Teacher Legion: "It's a metaphysical argument from motion that starts with beings that have potential and attempts to demonstrate that some other kind of being is necessary. It's one argument that is part a broader metaphysic that Aquinas held"
Student Cal: "It's a physics argument you idiot. If you knew how things move around you wouldn't say stupid things. Have you ever heard of Newton? Have you ever seen a satellite orbiting earth? You're a deluded fool."
Teacher Legion: "I think I'll stop here until you quite arguing"
Student SteveK: "Hey Cal, physics cannot possibly demonstrate that some other kind of being is - or is not - necessary. That should be your first and only necessary clue that the FW is not a physics argument."
Student Cal: "You're also delusional. Science just hasn't figured out how to do that. All hail Scientism!"
Student SteveK: "So we agree - it's not a physics argument"
Teacher Legion: " Drinking alcohol in class is not allowed, Cal"
Cal keeps pointing out that I decided not to continue with the line by line approach, and criticizes me for it as though it was due to some inability on my part. He claims that very powerful and pertinent objections have been raised that have not been addressed.
Since I first offered the line by line approach, here is what I have dealt with. This is the general quality of objection:
1. Denial that things have potential states (they do)
2. Stuff does stuff.
3. Physicists don't use the First Way or A-T terminology (irrelevant)
4. Skeptics understand the argument better than those who formulated the argument (skeptics don't even understand the terminology)
5. List of asserted, and undemonstrated, fallacies
6. Strawman about a thing being made into a state by something already in that state (not a premise)
7. Attempt to use "actually" like a noun, then claiming I was the one doing that (I wasn't)
8. Not knowing the definition of "emphasize"
9. Baseless denial that the burning wood example was to illustrate act and potency, rather than what it takes to make something hot
10. Making every possible argument into a physics argument (they aren't)
11. "Soft causes soft."
12. Denial that objections have been addressed (they were)
13. Claim that Aristotle's and Aquinas' ignorance of subatomic particles defeats the First Way (it doesn't)
14. Attempts to avoid considering what Aquinas and Aristotle believed when evaluating the meaning of the argument they constructed
15. Insults for consulting the broader writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and A-T scholars for context of the subject matter in the First Way
16. Claiming that water freezing into ice is not a potential state of water being actualized (it is)
17. Claims that the concept of potential states involves anthropomorphization (it does not, at least by any definition of the word I have seen)
18. Claims that all instances of observation are scientific in nature (they are not)
19. "What is really real is that everything is in a continuous/continual mutual multibody causal relationship with everything else. In classical relativity causal effects propagate locally no faster than the speed of light described as a light cone. Some indications point to non-local (super luminal) propagation of causal effects, and contrary to ordinary logic certain experiments actually support the notion of an effect without a cause, so called intrinsic randomness."
20. Claims that the First Way deals with the origin of the universe (it does not)
21. Baseless claims that I believe truth is synonymous with things that are important to me
22. Baseless claims that I think science is only done in laboratories
23. Baseless claims that if the First Way is not a science argument, then it is not about knowledge
24. Baseless accusations of being a narcissist
25. Denial that a definition I used was in the skeptic's own words, and accusations that I tried to say he had literally come up with it on his own
26. Repeated demands for my definition of truth (tangent)
27. Immature insults as I attempted to refine my definitions to be more clear and precise
28. Invalid comparisons of the First Way with phlogiston theory
29. Accusing me of being contradictory with definitions when I clearly said the "contradiction" was due to retracting the previous definition based on a faulty belief that the definition had been understood by the skeptic
30. Inability to give a simple yes or no answer when asked if water freezes
31. Accusing me of claiming that ice can exist without water (I did not)
32. Accusing me of trying to avoid analyzing the First Way with modern scientific findings (I said the exact opposite repeatedly)
33. Conflating of something being scientific with something being testable by science
34. Constant appeals to the ground rules of good argumentation, with a decided lack of examples of how the First Way fails to follow these rules
35. Failure to understand the difference between explaining how something works and forming a logical conclusion based upon the fact that something works
36. Asserting that science disproves the early premises of the First Way, and failing to demonstrate the truth of this assertion upon request
37. Denial that a thrown brick is what breaks the window it flies through
38. Abandoning the scientific concept of solid objects by pointing out they are mostly empty space, even though any reasonable person and science itself are not being literal by saying "solid"
39. Claiming that those who deny the reality of bricks, glass, and ice are more enlightened than those who acknowledge these things
40. Claims that any statement that does not completely enumerate every single aspect of every single quark involved is not accurate
41. Denials that a rock being pushed along the ground will stop due to outside forces acting upon it, because science
42. Baseless claim that my life would be better if I wasn't a Christian (demonstrably false)
43. Denying that a thing that causes something else to move is the cause of the other thing's motion
44. Asserting inertia as defeating the First Way (it does not)
45. Attempts to tie the soundness of the First Way with the success of A-T physics, even though the First Way does not depend upon A-T physics
46. Claiming that "reality" and "performing physics" are synonymous (they are not)
47. Failure to understand the difference between someone performing physics, and something being testable by physics
48. "Describe a change in which there is no physical movement."
49. Being incapable of understanding different categories of motion under A-T philosophy, yet claiming I'm spouting gibberish (I'm not)
50. Being incapable of reading what I write when I explain why I brought up A-T categories of motion, and then inaccurately claiming the First Way depends upon there being motion that isn't change in physical location, and then lying and claiming I had yet to address the repeated request for an example of change not involving any physical motion
51. Falsely claiming that potential and actual are synonymous with unreal and real
52. Claiming that I "suspect" there is no such thing as a change that involves no physical motion, even though I had never asserted otherwise
53. Denial that things have properties, inherent traits and capacities for change, even though they do (not even using A-T terminology and still got denied)
54. Failure to explain the First Way upon repeated request, even though the skeptics claimed to understand it better than even Aristotle and Aquinas
55. Baseless accusation that I don't understand biology since I pointed out that a leaf changing color would have been a different sort of motion than physical movement under A-T philosophy
56. Baseless accusation that I don't understand what change is since I accurately pointed out that the First Way is not merely a physics argument, due to all A-T categories of change being included
57. Insults at the lengths of my posts while also demanding I explain myself
58. Baseless accusation that I claimed change without physical movement is a premise of the First Way (I did not)
59. Baseless accusation that I claimed a leaf changing color does not involve physical motion (I did not)
60. Extremely inaccurate assertion that since potential states “don't exist”, then the First Way must depend upon change that doesn't involve physical movement
61. Baseless accusation that I have not been consistent in my position (I have)
62. Failure to explain how Newton defeats the First Way upon request
63. Baseless accusation that I don't realize the First Way is about reality
64. Ignoring the writings and beliefs of the argument's authors in order to attack a strawman, and calling me arrogant for using the authors' beliefs to interpret the authors' argument, and even claiming that knowing their intent makes me less capable of knowing their intent
65. Pretending that a huge series of posts I had very recently written addressing a point had actually never been written
66. Being completely incapable of scrolling up a few posts and locating sentences that were bolded, even when the date is provided
67. Baseless accusation that I have not answered questions (I have)
68. Conflating the A-T term motion with the modern usage of the word motion, and then accusing me of being unclear in my terminology even though I had explained multiple times that the two were not the same
69. Lying about my motivation for beginning the line by line approach, even though I spelled it out clearly
70. Stating that a post that spells out my motivation for beginning the line by line approach, does not in fact spell out my motivation for beginning the line by line approach, even though it clearly did
71. Baseless accusation that I believe my understanding of the meaning of the First Way is the correct one simply because it's mine
72. Strawman that the First Way deals with demonstrating the initial motion in the past (it does not)
73. Calling it absurd to say that Aquinas would not logically argue for something he has stated could not be logically argued
74. Continuous conflating of accidentally and essentially ordered series, despite the difference being explained
75. Asserting that the existence of accidentally ordered series refutes the concept of essentially ordered series and thus defeats the First Way (it does not)
76. Asserting that past motion defeats the concept of an essentially ordered series (it does not)
77. Claiming that a caboose decoupled from an engine will sustain its motion, even though it will not, and then turning around that the inability to sustain its motion is due to friction overcoming inertia, which is somehow different than saying the caboose won't sustain its motion
78. Denying that the question of whether water freezes into ice was quibbled over (it was)
79. Baseless accusation that rewording a question in order to get a response to that question is in fact deceitful
80. Baseless accusation that claiming a caboose must have a sustaining force to continue its movement – directly synonymous with overcoming the slowing effect of friction – is being willfully ignorant
81. Claiming that a train on Earth is actually a train in space, even though any reasonable person knows exactly what difference is being implied
82. Erroneous claim that the difference between accidentally and essentially ordered series, according to me, is that one has inertia and the other does not
83. Baseless accusation that I don't understand inertia
84. Comparing the truth of a caboose requiring a sustaining force acting upon it to overcome friction and continue moving, with the “truth” of the sun sliding across the sky
85. Claiming that if the caboose does not stop instantly upon being decoupled from the engine, then it defeats the concept of an essentially ordered series, even though it does not
That's the vast bulk of what I've dealt with (I didn't even get into what the others dealt with). There were admittedly a few relevant points here and there, but this is the overwhelming majority, and most of them appeared more than once.
And yet with all of that, Cal is still saying that I have not addressed his very powerful and pertinent objections, which I just demonstrated were nothing but a cesspit of irrelevant nonsense. Cal is still saying I should act like the above list of objections is not sheer, unadulterated garbage that I've had to slog through trying to actually do the line by line approach. Cal is saying that I abandoned the exercise due to inability or whatever, rather than looking at the bloated mass of gibberish that had been thrown at me since March and realizing the objective of the exercise could not possibly be met.
If you read through that list and don't cringe or laugh, then you are not intellectually capable of having this discussion.
Legion: "Cal is saying that I abandoned the exercise due to inability or whatever, rather than looking at the bloated mass of gibberish that had been thrown at me since March and realizing the objective of the exercise could not possibly be met."
Oh, boo hoo. Get over yourself.
It's an online discussion, that's supposed to be about ideas -- and to a secondary degree, the ways in which we come to believe things, and possibly change our minds.
I asked you repeatedly to not get hung up on criticisms of your definitions and to move on, but you have been unwilling or unable.
Legion: "If you read through that list and don't cringe or laugh, then you are not intellectually capable of having this discussion."
I cringed (for you) on reading through that list. If you think my response somehow prevents you from doing what you said you would do, then you are (perforce) not capable of having the discussion you invited.
19 was not a critique of the validity of your words, but rather a tendency to throw long strings of scientific jargon at some aspect of the First Way or other which ultimately proves irrelevant to the point being made. More details is not equivalent to more correct in every case.
I knew your reaction would be further lashing out at me, rather than utilizing self-reflection to realize how disgraceful your conduct has been during this exercise. After all, it's been proven that you are not fazed even by quotes directly proving you wrong. The primary purpose of me listing the "objections" in this fashion was morbid curiosity for myself, and entertainment for bmiller and SteveK, because I know you are incapable of recognizing your multiple failures.
As I proved through quotation of myself, I couldn't care less if you or Stardusty agree with the First Way since it is hardly some sort of ideological or emotional pillar I rest upon. As bmiller and SteveK do agree with it, I can't very well ask them to do their best to refute it, so it fell to the skeptics. At one time, you exhibited understanding of some of the terminology, so I took that to mean you were capable of learning the purpose of the argument and then refuting the actual argument. That's why I offered the line by line approach to you.
Along the way, I encountered the 85 listed "objections", usually multiple times apiece, and not one of them even scratches the surface of the argument. They indicate absolute ignorance as to what the premises were saying. They were assertions with no backing. They were often insults as to my motives and capabilities (which I admittedly returned in kind). Basically, you proved yourself incapable of undertaking the process of learning what the argument was saying and then refuting it, so continuing the exercise with you is a colossal waste of time. I'm not impressed by your strawmen, accusations, insults, or baseless assertions, so take those things away and you were awfully silent.
You defeated yourself, not me, so I simply decided to enumerate the reasons I abandoned the exercise in the face of yet further baseless accusations questioning my motives for stopping.
" 19 was not a critique of the validity of your words, but rather a tendency to throw long strings of scientific jargon at some aspect of the First Way" --Well, I wasn't trying to muddy the waters by throwing out jargon, although I suppose it might seem that way to the reader. I think those points are important to the broader question of our understanding of causality, and thus the way to understand the origins of motion, change, and causation.
" or other which ultimately proves irrelevant to the point being made." --It's relevant to one of my points, which is that the First Way is irrelevant in the search for the origin of causation.
I provided a very brief statement of modern notions of causation. A-T language doesn't even come up. A-T language is simply irrelevant, just a quaint historical artifact of arguments and concepts discarded as useless a century ago.
" More details is not equivalent to more correct in every case." --Number 19 might sound like a lot of details and jargon but it really just gives a very brief introduction to what modern science has moved on to after discarding A-T language and concepts.
If you can understand this then you can understand the argument. No language of physics is required.
1) Start with an essentially ordered causal series 2) Stack as few or as many (potential -> actual) terms together as you want 3) At every step one more (actual) thing is always needed to explain the causal series 4) Thus demonstrating that a (potential -> actual) causal series cannot explain itself 5) Thus demonstrating that (actual) is necessary
The skeptics have argued that the FW argument is invalid because the existence of a unique (potential -> actual) being that does not require an (actual) to explain itself is a possible solution.
This is an nonsensical idea under the metaphysics of Aquinas. More would have to be said to explain why, but the short answer is the FW argument isn't guilty of engaging in a logically fallacy when it rules out the existence of a unique being like that.
Legion: "I knew your reaction would be further lashing out at me, rather than utilizing self-reflection to realize how disgraceful your conduct has been during this exercise.”
mkay.
Legion: After all, it's been proven that you are not fazed even by quotes directly proving you wrong.”
You live in a fantasy world.
Legion: “The primary purpose of me listing the "objections" in this fashion was morbid curiosity for myself, and entertainment for bmiller and SteveK, because I know you are incapable of recognizing your multiple failures.”
Or you are deluded and aren’t thinking clearly.
Legion: “As I proved through quotation of myself, I couldn't care less if you or Stardusty agree with the First Way since it is hardly some sort of ideological or emotional pillar I rest upon.”
“As I proved through quotation of myself…” <— that is a good summary of your level of thinking throughout here.
Legion: “As bmiller and SteveK do agree with it, I can't very well ask them to do their best to refute it, so it fell to the skeptics.”
Sure. And we pointed out, over and over, the numerous and obvious ways that the First Way fails to abide by the rules of argument.
To attempt to refute our criticisms, you said you would go through the argument, line by line, carefully define terms, and in so doing show us how the violations of the rules of argument were somehow not.
Then you stopped.
Legion: At one time, you exhibited understanding of some of the terminology, so I took that to mean you were capable of learning the purpose of the argument and then refuting the actual argument.”
I accepted the definitions you offered. I pointed out the confusion in other definitions you used, asking for clarification. I asked you to proceed with your line by line approach. Still, you stopped.
It’s laughable that you would stop because I wouldn’t “learn the purpose of the argument” — what is at issue is the argument itself, which we have shown to fail to abide by the rules of good argument. An argument that fails to abide by the rules of good argument CANNOT fulfill it’s purpose — so, your silly claim to stop because I wouldn’t agree beforehand that the First Way fulfilled it’s purpose is akin to saying you won because I wouldn’t agree beforehand that you won.
You are a joke.
Legion: “Along the way, I encountered the 85 listed "objections", usually multiple times apiece, and not one of them even scratches the surface of the argument.”
Your list is a kind of weird little tabulation of how your mind seems to work. I winced for you when reading it.
Legion: “They indicate absolute ignorance as to what the premises were saying. They were assertions with no backing. They were often insults as to my motives and capabilities (which I admittedly returned in kind).”
And yet you couldn’t ever find the time to define your terms and actually show us how the First Way avoids the mistakes of bad argument that we pointed out. Weird, I know.
Legion: “Basically, you proved yourself incapable of undertaking the process of learning what the argument was saying and then refuting it, so continuing the exercise with you is a colossal waste of time. I'm not impressed by your strawmen, accusations, insults, or baseless assertions, so take those things away and you were awfully silent.”
Nope. I have pointed out over and over the ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
I have patiently responded to your false accusations over and over and over.
Throughout, you have failed to do what you had vowed you would do.
Legion: “You defeated yourself, not me, so I simply decided to enumerate the reasons I abandoned the exercise in the face of yet further baseless accusations questioning my motives for stopping.”
stevek: "If you can understand this then you can understand the argument. No language of physics is required. 1) Start with an essentially ordered causal series 2) Stack as few or as many (potential -> actual) terms together as you want 3) At every step one more (actual) thing is always needed to explain the causal series 4) Thus demonstrating that a (potential -> actual) causal series cannot explain itself 5) Thus demonstrating that (actual) is necessary"
Congratulations. You have just reduced the First Way to the tautology that a sequence where each link is preceded by another is a sequence where each link is preceded by another.
But the First Way is supposed to argue that god is the first mover.
And apologist pretend that it's skeptics who don't understand the First Way.
I live in a world where quotes have proven you wrong 100 percent of the time. This world is called the real world.
Cal: "Or you are deluded and aren’t thinking clearly."
While within the realm of possibility, there is a decided lack of evidence supporting it.
Cal: "that is a good summary of your level of thinking throughout here."
Indeed. By quoting myself, I proved you wrong every time you made an accusation about what I had said. Every time.
Cal: "Sure. And we pointed out, over and over, the numerous and obvious ways that the First Way fails to abide by the rules of argument."
I enumerated what you provided. It does not match what you claim you did. You failed, horribly.
Cal: "Then you stopped."
For reasons I clearly spelled out - but then, you aren't fazed by things that prove you wrong, are you?
Cal: "Your list is a kind of weird little tabulation of how your mind seems to work. I winced for you when reading it."
My list of your abject failures shows how my mind works? That's an interesting possibility, that you are an alternate personality of mine of which I'm unaware. Plot twist!
Cal: "And yet you couldn’t ever find the time to define your terms and actually show us how the First Way avoids the mistakes of bad argument that we pointed out. Weird, I know."
It is weird, because I did define them. I can go right to the post where I did so. The problem is that I was dealing with someone who is incapable of holding up his end of the agreement. I did not take that into account. Also, you asserted it was a bad argument without demonstrating it was a bad argument, which happens to be listed under #34.
Cal: "I accepted the definitions you offered. I pointed out the confusion in other definitions you used, asking for clarification. I asked you to proceed with your line by line approach. Still, you stopped."
Indeed, you did do those things. You also did the things I listed. Unfortunately, the things I listed exceeded the things you listed by a very wide margin. And yet, if I only addressed the things you listed, and ignored the things you said which I listed, then you would have claimed my failure to address those things was because I couldn't defend the First Way from your criticisms.
Cal: " what is at issue is the argument itself, which we have shown to fail to abide by the rules of good argument"
#34.
Cal: "You are a joke."
Perhaps, but certainly not because of anything either of us did in this discussion.
Cal: "Nope. I have pointed out over and over the ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument."
No, you have asserted it over and over and have never demonstrated it. #34.
Cal: "I have patiently responded to your false accusations over and over and over."
The entirety of false accusations was yours. I can go back into the posts and demonstrate that, as well, if you'd like. Though of course you aren't fazed by posts that decisively prove you wrong, are you?
Cal: "You gave up. It’s easy to surmise why."
One need not surmise, just read what I wrote and you'll know exactly why I abandoned the exercise. Of course, you ignore what I write anyway, so why bother?
>> "You have just reduced the First Way to the tautology that a sequence where each link is preceded by another is a sequence where each link is preceded by another."
Congrats on failing to read and comprehend English at a 6th grade level. That takes effort, but you did it.
Me: "To attempt to refute our criticisms, you said you would go through the argument, line by line, carefully define terms, and in so doing show us how the violations of the rules of argument were somehow not. /Then you stopped." Legion: "For reasons I clearly spelled out - but then, you aren't fazed by things that prove you wrong, are you?"
Two things:
1. You said you would go through the whole argument line by line, and then you stopped. These are facts. These are facts that I stated.
2. My pointing out that said you would go through the whole argument line by line, and then you stopped, is NOT proven wrong by your subsequently coming up with excuses for not doing what you said you would do. You said you would do something. You didn't. These are facts.
You might have an excuse, etc. But don’t deny what is obviously and demonstrably true. It just makes you seem (more) delusional.
The rest of your comments are a lot of boo hoo, oh poor me drivel, combined with a lot of false recounting of your imagined rejoinders or whatnot. Whatever.
But facts remain stubborn things (see, above). And you appear consistently in opposition to them.
Like this fact:
You said you would rebut the criticisms of the numerous ways in which the First Way does not abide by the rules of good argument, and then you gave up.
Top of my head, failings with the First Way have included: - Unsound premise(s?) - Equivocation - Contradiction - Begging the question - Ad hoc
I have yet to see a real rebuttal to these criticisms. Instead, I see a seemingly endless repetition of what began this comment -- a simple, straightforward statement of a fact by the skeptics here, followed by an easily falsifiable claim by the apologists and an equally false claim of having achieved what the apologists have not.
Prediction: The apologists will be so upset over the facts making them appear ridiculous, again, that they will chatter amongst one another and agree on some falsehood or set of falsehoods, thus avoiding the feeling of being ridiculous.
But apologists have to pretend that the fallacy of consensus is what makes an argument a good one.
And this pretending is what exposes them as the mob they are; mob agreement (ad populum) doesn't make an argument a good one. The (objective) rules of good argument are what determines that.
And that is why they fail to win at intellectual argument.
This is great. You've provided a handy index of atheist inanities that we all can refer to when they show up rather than all that typing. Most of the times they are combinations of the 85.
But I think you missed a few. I've been building my own list. Maybe I can add them to the end.
" More details is not equivalent to more correct in every case." --Number 19 might sound like a lot of details and jargon but it really just gives a very brief introduction to what modern science has moved on to after discarding A-T language and concepts.
Cal: "You said you would rebut the criticisms of the numerous ways in which the First Way does not abide by the rules of good argument, and then you gave up"
He did rebut the criticisms. If you cannot see that by now then there's probably nothing anyone here can do to help you. What Legion gave up was the act of repeating himself.
I think a big one you missed was PROJECTION. The atheists only know how their own minds work, so they can't imagine that others honestly seek the truth.
Cal: "Prediction: The apologists will be so upset over the facts making them appear ridiculous, again, that they will chatter amongst one another and agree on some falsehood or set of falsehoods, thus avoiding the feeling of being ridiculous.
But apologists have to pretend that the fallacy of consensus is what makes an argument a good one.
And this pretending is what exposes them as the mob they are; mob agreement (ad populum) doesn't make an argument a good one. The (objective) rules of good argument are what determines that.
And that is why they fail to win at intellectual argument."
This is a level of delusion I have rarely encountered online. You do realize that simply because you assert something doesn't make reality warp itself to your words, correct? The post history which humiliates you every time I refer to it does not change to make you look better - you're refuted at every turn.
Cal: "But don’t deny what is obviously and demonstrably true."
Flip side, don't accuse me of what is obviously and demonstrably false. Not once did I deny that I stopped.
Cal: "Top of my head, failings with the First Way have included: - Unsound premise(s?) - Equivocation - Contradiction - Begging the question - Ad hoc"
And to this, I point to #5 - List of asserted and undemonstrated fallacies. This one could easily be scratched off the list, however, by completing the following by filling in the blanks. I'm assuming you'll simply wait for Stardusty to do so, but you might surprise me by attempting it yourself.
The unsound premise(s) in the First Way is (blank) because (blank) .
(Blank) in the First Way is equivocation because (blank).
(Blank) and (blank) in the First Way are contradictions because (blank).
(Blank) is begging the question in the First Way because (blank).
(Blank) in the First Way is ad hoc because (blank).
Legion:”The unsound premise(s) in the First Way is (blank) because (blank) .
Per the most recent spate of comments, objects do not need a “sustaining force” to continue moving. This fact is demonstrated broadly. Your misunderstanding of the forces involving motion and friction is what apparently prevents you from understanding this.
The above is so obvious I can’t explain your inability to grasp it other than you are so stupid as to be considered deluded.
Legion: “(Blank) in the First Way is equivocation because (blank).”
To be in act is still muddled, because it conflates existence as matter, and also existence as matter in motion. Potential things are said to exist, but they do not exist.
Again, this has been explicated to you many times. That you are apparently so stupid and/or deluded to grasp it is not the fault of the skeptics here.
(Blank) and (blank) in the First Way are contradictions because (blank).
The first way says that a thing cannot both exist and potentially exist (ugh) in the same way, but that is the conclusion of the first mover (which exists, and also moves things).
This has been explicated to you many times. That you are apparently so stupid and/or deluded to grasp it is not the fault of the skeptics here.
(Blank) is begging the question in the First Way because (blank).
The First Way is supposed to argue that a First Mover is necessary because an infinite regress is impossible; the First Way arbitrarily declares that an infinite regress is impossible without arguing for why that should be the case (outside of stipulating that an infinite regress is impossible).
This has been explicated to you many times. That you are apparently so stupid and/or deluded to grasp it is not the fault of the skeptics here.
(Blank) in the First Way is ad hoc because (blank).
The First Way declares that the First Mover everyone knows to be god without demonstrating this.
This has been explicated to you many times. That you are apparently so stupid and/or deluded to grasp it is not the fault of the skeptics here.
Me: "Cal: "Prediction: The apologists will be so upset over the facts making them appear ridiculous, again, that they will chatter amongst one another and agree on some falsehood or set of falsehoods, thus avoiding the feeling of being ridiculous. / But apologists have to pretend that the fallacy of consensus is what makes an argument a good one. / And this pretending is what exposes them as the mob they are; mob agreement (ad populum) doesn't make an argument a good one. The (objective) rules of good argument are what determines that. / And that is why they fail to win at intellectual argument."
In consider the above to be one of the most awesomely demonstrated internet psychological predictions of all time.
The fact that the prediction was so quickly verified discourages me from having much hope for humanity's future, however.
" The fact that the prediction was so quickly verified discourages me from having much hope for humanity's future, however."
This then, my lords and gentlemen, is the message which we send forth today to all states and nations, bound or free, to all the men in all the lands who care for freedom's cause. To our Allies and well-wishers in Europe, to our American friends and helpers drawing ever closer in their might across the ocean, this is the message-lift up your hearts, all will come right. Out of depths of sorrow and sacrifice will be born again the glory of mankind.
...stiff upper lip, old boy, we've prevailed over far worse.
All of Cal's objections have been discussed at length. If he listened and if he understood that the FW requires background knowledge of Aquinas' metaphysical principles (also discussed at length) then he wouldn't say stupid things like he has. Cal might better understand some of these metaphysical principles if he were to let Legion continue to explain the FW argument - but Cal refuses to quit being a crank.
Cal: "Per the most recent spate of comments, objects do not need a “sustaining force” to continue moving. This fact is demonstrated broadly. Your misunderstanding of the forces involving motion and friction is what apparently prevents you from understanding this."
#44: "Asserting inertia as defeating the First Way (it does not)"
#80: "Baseless accusation that claiming a caboose must have a sustaining force to continue its movement – directly synonymous with overcoming the slowing effect of friction – is being willfully ignorant"
#83: "Baseless accusation that I don't understand inertia"
Do you realize how much you are embarrassing yourself?
Cal: "To be in act is still muddled"
What is so difficult to understand about "in a realized state"?
Cal: "because it conflates existence as matter, and also existence as matter in motion."
What?
Cal: "Potential things are said to exist, but they do not exist."
#1: "Denial that things have potential states (they do)"
#53: "Denial that things have properties, inherent traits and capacities for change, even though they do (not even using A-T terminology and still got denied)"
Do you realize how much you are embarrassing yourself?
Cal: "The first way says that a thing cannot both exist and potentially exist (ugh) in the same way, but that is the conclusion of the first mover (which exists, and also moves things)."
"Potentially exists" is not synonymous with "moves things". Even I had no idea how pathetic your understanding of the argument was, and I was getting subjected to your inanities on a near daily basis.
Cal: "The First Way is supposed to argue that a First Mover is necessary because an infinite regress is impossible; the First Way arbitrarily declares that an infinite regress is impossible without arguing for why that should be the case"
Actually, he outlines right there in the argument why that should be the case. Wow.
Cal: "The First Way declares that the First Mover everyone knows to be god without demonstrating this."
#12: "Denial that objections have been addressed (they were)"
#64: "Ignoring the writings and beliefs of the argument's authors in order to attack a strawman, and calling me arrogant for using the authors' beliefs to interpret the authors' argument, and even claiming that knowing their intent makes me less capable of knowing their intent"
This "objection" has been adequately addressed multiple times by all of us here, particularly bmiller. That you're too too stupid or deluded to realize it is not the fault of the Christians.
You're an embarrassment to all skeptics. But you'll keep trying, won't you?
Cal: "In consider the above to be one of the most awesomely demonstrated internet psychological predictions of all time."
LOL!
Cal: "The apologists will be so upset (didn't happen) over the facts making them appear ridiculous(didn't happen), again (never happened), that they will chatter amongst one another (didn't happen) and agree on some falsehood or set of falsehoods (didn't happen), thus avoiding the feeling of being ridiculous (nothing to feel ridiculous about). / But apologists have to pretend that the fallacy of consensus is what makes an argument a good one (didn't happen). / And this pretending (didn't happen) is what exposes them as the mob they are (didn't happen); mob agreement (ad populum) doesn't make an argument a good one (we haven't done this). The (objective) rules of good argument are what determines that (#34). / And that is why they fail to win at intellectual argument (you were annihilated)."
One of the most awesomely demonstrated psychological predictions? You literally got every single thought wrong, except for what makes a good argument, and you've failed at demonstrating we violated that. Easily the worst prediction I have ever encountered online, and that is saying a lot.
Apparently Cal thinks an explanation isn't valid unless he agrees it is. We've explained why these criticisms fail so that SHOULD settle the issue - but nope
Cal is a typical arrogant skeptic who thinks he is the standard by which arguments pass or fail, but I'm still laughing over his amazing prediction. It had twelve separate thoughts, and was wrong on every single one of them, yet he thinks it is "one of the most awesomely demonstrated internet psychological predictions of all time". I seriously can't stop laughing every time I think of it.
Legion: "Cal is a typical arrogant skeptic who thinks he is the standard by which arguments pass or fail, but I'm still laughing over his amazing prediction. It had twelve separate thoughts, and was wrong on every single one of them, yet he thinks it is "one of the most awesomely demonstrated internet psychological predictions of all time". I seriously can't stop laughing every time I think of it."
You seem unaware that you and the other apologists continue to fulfill my prediction all the way through to this comment as well.
The effectiveness of a psychological prediction, even when presented to the subjects before the phenomena is to be observed, makes me more less skeptical of traditional psychological techniques than I had been. Really makes me wonder what the next step should be.
Cal: "The effectiveness of a psychological prediction"
I'll complete your sentence for you. The effectiveness of a psychological dependent can be evaluated on how well it actually predicts. As I demonstrated, it was a 100 percent failure.
But you seem to think differently. So, I'm sure you'll be happy to:
demonstrate that I or any of us was upset;
demonstrate that any facts have made us appear ridiculous;
demonstrate that any past facts have made us appear ridiculous;
demonstrate that we chattered amongst ourselves;
demonstrate that we agreed upon a falsehood;
demonstrate that we were trying to avoid feeling ridiculous;
demonstrate we are adopting the fallacy of concensus;
demonstrate that we are pretending;
demonstrate that we are acting as a mob, any more than you and Stardusty (3v2, not that different);
demonstrate that we are adopting ad populum tactics;
explain the rules of good argument, and explain how we have failed to abide by them;
If you can do those things, you might stand a chance at demonstrating that we have failed to win the argument. It will also demonstrate the amazing accuracy of your prediction.
I have a prediction that I suspect will yield much more accurate results - you will fail to demonstrate that your prediction had even the slightest anchor in reality.
Legion: “Cal is a typical arrogant skeptic who thinks he is the standard by which arguments pass or fail, but I'm still laughing over his amazing prediction.”
Um, I have pointed out over and over that there are rules to argument (stevek has agreed with me), and that the First Way violates many of those rules. You can disagree with me that there are rules to argument, but that would make you seem silly (and comport with my assessment that you are a kind of narcissist, which I recall you finding objectionable), so I imagine you'll end up realizing that you should agree that there are indeed rules to argument.
I have distinguished my comments from apologists here by referring to this objective standard -- the rules of argument. Note how apologists just say things equivalent to, “I disagree therefore you’re wrong.” The difference is that I refer to an objective standard (the rules of argument), and apologists instead regularly refer only to their own (subjective) determinations. I imagine that this is why they congregate on sites like this, because by assuring one another they can pretend that their agreement that skeptics are somehow wrong should be the standard for evaluating arguments. But group consensus is not the standard for evaluating arguments. Group consensus alone (ad populum) is a known fallacy.
Legion: “It had twelve separate thoughts, and was wrong on every single one of them, yet he thinks it is "one of the most awesomely demonstrated internet psychological predictions of all time". I seriously can't stop laughing every time I think of it.”
Nope. You just list a bunch of instances of you’re saying “Nuh uh,” and somehow think your self-reference serves as a refutation. But all you’ve indicated is that you disagree. And your disagreement exposes you to the criticism that you are bad at evaluating reality. Your disagreement is another indication of the extent to which you are deluded.
Cal: "I imagine you'll end up realizing that you should agree that there are indeed rules to argument"
And this dovetails nicely with my statement that you believe you are the standard by which all arguments are judged. After all, not once have I disagreed about rules of argument, but what I have done is refuted your asserted violations of those rules. So apparently, disagreeing with you is disagreeing with the rules of argumentation. And I'm the narcissist?
Cal: "I have distinguished my comments from apologists here by referring to this objective standard -- the rules of argument."
Indeed, per #34, you have referred to them many, many times. What you have yet to accomplish is demonstrating how those rules were violated. You attempted it a few posts ago, and I showed you were wrong.
Cal: "Note how apologists just say things equivalent to, “I disagree therefore you’re wrong.”
I haven't seen a single occurrence of this. I have seen us all disagree with you when you are wrong (notice how often we disagree with you), yet you take this disagreement to mean that we are violating the rules of argument, which you can't demonstrate but still believe. Obviously, you believe you are the sole judge of argumentation. You may have memorized a list of rules, but you have no idea what they mean or how to apply them. Self-criticism is not a tool in the skeptic handbag.
Cal: "Nope."
Yep.
Cal: "You just list a bunch of instances of you’re saying “Nuh uh,” and somehow think your self-reference serves as a refutation."
"Nuh uh" is a delusional misrepresentation of what I said. I would not be surprised if it's all you are capable of comprehending, based on your behavior. "I can't understand what he is saying, but I know he's disagreeing with me and I'm the standard for whether arguments are good, so he's wrong."
Cal: "And your disagreement exposes you to the criticism that you are bad at evaluating reality."
And this statement proves you are deluded and believe you are the sole arbiter of arguments.
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how your amazing prediction was spot-on. I think we both know why you are avoiding it. Not capable of it, are you?
If you're concerned about the "rules of argument". The first step is to understand what the argument is saying before examining if it violates any rules.
The fact that you still assert #20 after being informed that:
1) Aristotle did not believe the universe had an origin 2) Therefore the "first mover" refers to present motion, not the origin of motion 3) That all knowledgeable scholars and commentators agree with 1) and 2) 4) That relevant passages of Physics were quoted to confirm 2) 5) The English and Latin verbs of any version of the First Way confirm 2)
demonstrates that you simply don't understand the argument in the first place. Whatever argument you think you are criticizing is not the First Way but instead is a Strawman which of course it the fallacy you two have peddled since the beginning.
@Cal >> "The difference is that I refer to an objective standard (the rules of argument), and apologists instead regularly refer only to their own (subjective) determinations."
This is laughable.
I can live with disagreement, but you are going beyond that.
You IGNORE what we say. After 1900 comments you pretend nothing has been said to address your criticisms. I'm not sure why. Maybe you don't understand what is being said. Maybe you aren't convinced and need more information. Maybe your scientism is hindering you. I don't really know. But you are ignoring what we are saying and pretending that your criticisms haven't been addressed. They have.
It's a sickness. You keep repeating statements that have been rebutted LONG ago. You should not be saying them but you do. Why is that?
" You keep repeating statements that have been rebutted LONG ago. You should not be saying them but you do. Why is that?" --For myself it is that with respect to the many structural and rational defects of the First Way the rebuttals have been logically false.
The first way suffers from begging the question, ad hoc assertion, false dichotomy, non-sequitur, and is not even complete as an argument for the existence of god.
Finer points of criticism about it can also be made but at it's core the argument is logically invalid as well as containing false premise and is thus glaringly unsound.
4a and 4, and 5 are plainly begging the question, for example. ~~U therefore ~I ~I therefore U
The First Way is simply ridiculous. Aquinas follows this pattern in the other 4 ways as well, which all contain tautologies and false premises.
No sound rebuttals to these facts of argumentation have been presented. For reference see: March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM May 11, 2017 9:00 AM
Dusty, I suspect my recent comment below makes reference to your complaint. To explain why it's not begging the question you'd have to look at the metaphysics of Aquinas where he discusses causality, forms, substance, essence, existence, etc. That sets the stage for what you see in the FW. As we explained from the start, the FW argument was not meant to be a stand-alone argument.
Me: "The skeptics have argued that the FW argument is invalid because the existence of a unique (potential -> actual) being that does not require an (actual) to explain itself is a possible solution.
This is an nonsensical idea under the metaphysics of Aquinas. More would have to be said to explain why, but the short answer is the FW argument isn't guilty of engaging in a logically fallacy when it rules out the existence of a unique being like that."
Stardusty: "The first way suffers from begging the question, ad hoc assertion, false dichotomy, non-sequitur, and is not even complete as an argument for the existence of god."
Cal is also fond of tossing out strings of undemonstrated fallacies, as if asserting the existence of the fallacy makes it so.
We refuted his list and he claimed that refutation proved his amazing prediction, so we know the quality of his argumentative skills. You present the same list that we already refuted, but you claim we did not refute them.
In the FW, motion is an example of secondary causation (efficient causation). The reason secondary causation cannot proceed to infinity is because - wait for it - it's secondary. It has nothing to do with math. Aquinas argues that final causality is the cause of all causes, meaning it is first cause.
Legion: "I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how your amazing prediction was spot-on. I think we both know why you are avoiding it. Not capable of it, are you?"
The demonstration is the subsequent comments of apologists since I made my prediction.
My prediction (again): "The apologists will be so upset over the facts making them appear ridiculous, again, that they will chatter amongst one another and agree on some falsehood or set of falsehoods, thus avoiding the feeling of being ridiculous."
The subsequent comments from apologists confirm my prediction. You disagree. Since you appear delusional to me, this is easily explainable -- you don't perceive reality in the same way I do, and that is the explanation for your being dumbfounded that the subsequent comments from apologists fulfilled my prediction.
Asking for a demonstration of my prediction is the same as asking for a demonstration of the apologists's comments. My demonstration is the subsequent comments. Sic.
My explanation for my prediction: "But apologists have to pretend that the fallacy of consensus is what makes an argument a good one. / And this pretending is what exposes them as the mob they are; mob agreement (ad populum) doesn't make an argument a good one. The (objective) rules of good argument are what determines that. / And that is why they fail to win at intellectual argument."
This is an explanation for the prior prediction. This is to provide background for how I formed my prediction. Since my prediction was confirmed by the subsequent chatter of the apologists here, I feel vindicated, and have gained new confidence in psychological explanation predicting what apologists will say next.
Your apparent disagreement is largely unimportant to me, since you appear delusional; if you were to agree with me at this point I would find that slightly discomfiting. And I take comfort that I do not share your delusion because my prediction proved correct; the delusional should be, everything considered, bad at prediction.
@Cal >> "The subsequent comments from apologists confirm my prediction." This only confirm your psychological projections onto the apologist.
>> "You disagree" This is what confirms your predictions were wrong. Your projections don't determine if someone is actually upset or avoiding a feeling.
When skeptics resort to psychological projection to justify their conclusions, it's a sure sign they don't have any real evidence.
stevek: "This only confirm your psychological projections onto the apologist."
I don't think you understand what psychological projection refers to.
stevek: "This is what confirms your predictions were wrong. Your projections don't determine if someone is actually upset or avoiding a feeling."
Try to keep up. My predictions were based on an explanation for behavior that rests on psychological observation. I didn't predict that apologists would merely be upset; I predicted that apologists would be so upset THAT they would behave a certain way. The comments fulfilled my prediction. This lends credence to my explanation, from which I had based my prediction.
stevek: "When skeptics resort to psychological projection to justify their conclusions, it's a sure sign they don't have any real evidence."
The evidence is the comments from apologists that followed my prediction. That is real evidence. And as I explained above, I based this prediction based on what I observe to be the psychology of apologists.
So, per Cal's explanation of his amazing prediction, we apologists would be SO UPSET by his words that we would...continue to disagree with him. And by continuing to disagree with him, this proved that we were SO UPSET that we would continue to disagree with him.
Unbeknownst to you, Cal, I silently predicted that your delusions, brought about by your atheism, would cause you to post another comment. You did. My predictions were correct as they were based on an explanation for the behavior that rests on psychological observation.
The evidence for you atheism-induced delusions is your comment that followed my prediction. It's real evidence.
Stardusty: "The first way suffers from begging the question, ad hoc assertion, false dichotomy, non-sequitur, and is not even complete as an argument for the existence of god."
" Demonstrate, please."
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM May 11, 2017 9:00 AM
" Dusty Explain once again how lines 4-5 are a fallacy because I don't see the fallacy you are referring to." --In short 4a therefore 4 4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a)
Alternatively ~~U therefore ~I ~I therefore U
Begging the question.
The technique Aquinas uses to attempt to hide the question begging (and in other arguments his tautologies) is to use slightly different words that mean effectively the same thing, and to use an extremely terse, truncated, and convoluted wording, lest the question begging become obvious even to the credulous believer.
Legion: "Hey Cal,What, precisely, would have disconfirmed your prediction?"
A specific, precise and focused attempt by an apologist to rebut a single of the criticisms of the First Way offered here, using the rules of good argument.
This is why I keep on bringing up the rules of good argument.
It's obvious that apologists don't respect the rules of good argument -- they either don't understand what the rules are (what a fallacy is and why it is bad), or don't have the ability to recognize violations when presented to them in an argument.
Here is the routine:
1. Skeptic points out a violation of the rules of good argument. 2. Apologist disagrees WITHOUT ACTUALLY REFUTING . (<-- THIS IS IMPORTANT) 3. Skeptic points out that refutation fails because refutation does not abide by the rules of good argument. 4. Apologist claims fallacious refutation succeeded by appealing to consensus among other apologists, NOT THE RULES OF GOOD ARGUMENT.
Do you see the shell game?
The process starts with an implicit agreement among both parties to analyze an argument by the rules of good argument. The process ends with the apologist falsely claiming to have refuted the criticism (usually relying on ad populum at one or both ends).
Much of this hinges on the inability of the apologist to recognize a violation of the rules of good argument ipso facto. You can see this explicitly with stevek, who says that he abides by the rules of good argument, but when presented with one doesn't recognize it -- but this is clearly common to all apologists.
Were an apologist to approach analysis of something like the First With WITHOUT this fundamental deceit (agreement in principle but not in fact) that would disconfirm my prediction.
In case the above baffles you, Cal, I'm simply utilizing the exact same strategy you are - denying that what you said has been responded to. I responded to your assertions on June 27 at 7:17. You claim I did not, which is either lying and saying I did not ever respond, or baselessly asserting it does not address what you said.
Either way, pathetic for someone who memorized a list of fallacies without knowing what they are and asserts the rules of good argumentation without being able to apply them.
Which one of my assertions, exactly? Quote my assertion to which you think you responded.
Then, be explicit on what in your June 27 at 7:17 reply explicitly responded to my assertion. Quote your response, exactly and in full.
Did you read this in response to what you had written:
Me: "You just list a bunch of instances of you’re saying “Nuh uh,” and somehow think your self-reference serves as a refutation. But all you’ve indicated is that you disagree. And your disagreement exposes you to the criticism that you are bad at evaluating reality. Your disagreement is another indication of the extent to which you are deluded."
You claimed I did not write the above -- (Legion: "You claim I did not [respond]..." , saying that I lied by claiming you did not respond. But a) I did not claim that you did not respond (that would have been a lie, like the one you wrote before this), and b) shows that you are confused by simple terms like "respond" and pointing out how your response qualifies as fallacious.
You are continuing to conform EXACTLY to what I described as the routine of deceit in which apologists operate in my response to you on June 29, 2017 5:59 AM.
This is another amazing example of a subject being unable to act contrary to a prediction even when explicitly challenged to avoid doing so.
The rules of good argumentation are a hot topic these days.
So, per the rules of good argumentation, we will not pretend that my post on June 27 at 7:17 did not occur. We will not make assertions without demonstrating that those assertions are true. So, Cal said things, and I responded. Now the ball is in Cal's court to:
Explain precisely how inertia defeats the First Way.
Explain precisely how a sustaining force is not required for a caboose to overcome friction and keep moving.
Demonstrate that I don't understand inertia.
Explain what is unclear about "in a realized state".
Explain what is meant by "because it conflates existence as matter, and also existence as matter in motion", perhaps by referring to the premise of the First Way that asserts this.
Demonstrate that things do not have potential states.
Demonstrate that things do not have properties, inherent traits, or capacities for change (same answer as above).
Demonstrate that "potentially exists" is synonymous with "moves things", perhaps by referring to the premise of the First Way or the idea in A-T philosophy that asserts this.
Demonstrate that the First Way does not address why a First Mover would be necessary over an infinite series of movers.
Demonstrate that we have not addressed "everyone understands to be God" multiple times.
Demonstrate that "everyone understands to be God" is part of the argument, since it is not included in the Summa Contra Gentiles (addressed to unbelievers) as it is in the Summa Theologica (addressed to Christians).
Cal: "This is another amazing example of a subject being unable to act contrary to a prediction even when explicitly challenged to avoid doing so"
Your amazing "prediction" was that I would continue to disagree with you. I bet you could get stellar odds in Vegas with that "prediction".
No, Cal, you are not the sole judge of good argumentation. I responded to you, now it's your turn to respond to what I said.
Also, regarding your "prediction":
demonstrate that I or any of us was upset (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that any facts have made us appear ridiculous (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that any past facts have made us appear ridiculous (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we chattered amongst ourselves (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we agreed upon a falsehood (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we were trying to avoid feeling ridiculous (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate we are adopting the fallacy of concensus (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we are pretending (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we are acting as a mob, any more than you and Stardusty (3v2, not that different) (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we are adopting ad populum tactics (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
explain the rules of good argument, and explain how we have failed to abide by them (note that, in a crazy twist, "explain" is not synonymous with "assert")
>> "4a therefore 4 4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a)"
I explained this on June 28, 2017 8:28 AM. Haines is answering the question 'why can't it proceed to infinity?' with 2 different sentences that both say the same thing about an infinite series. The focus of (a) and (b) is on the the *nature of being*, in this case the nature of the infinite series.
Why? a) Because, by nature, an infinite series without another thing to move it is a motionless series. b) Because, by nature, an infinite series does not move unless it is moved by another
The days of you hiding behind bald assertions is over, Cal. I'm going to call you out, every single time I catch it, and continue asking for you to demonstrate that assertion to be accurate before I move on. Here's a prediction: You will opt to ignore me before you will actually try to abide by the rules of good argumentation, which does not include the bald assertions that you rely on.
Which one of my assertions, exactly? Quote my assertion to which you think you responded.
Then, be explicit on what in your June 27 at 7:17 reply explicitly responded to my assertion. Quote your response, exactly and in full.
If you think you can abide by the rules of good argument (which entails being careful, precise, and taking things one at time until resolved), then I will respond to each and every issue you raise.
Cal: "Quote my assertion to which you think you responded."
Certainly.
Cal: "Per the most recent spate of comments, objects do not need a “sustaining force” to continue moving. This fact is demonstrated broadly. Your misunderstanding of the forces involving motion and friction is what apparently prevents you from understanding this."
Me: "#44: "Asserting inertia as defeating the First Way (it does not)"
#80: "Baseless accusation that claiming a caboose must have a sustaining force to continue its movement – directly synonymous with overcoming the slowing effect of friction – is being willfully ignorant"
#83: "Baseless accusation that I don't understand inertia"
My responses were to point out that it has not been demonstrated that inertia is damaging to the First Way, to point out that a caboose does in fact require a sustaining force in order to keep moving over the effects of friction, and to point out that there is not a single rational reason to suspect I don't understand inertia.
Addressing what you wrote? Obviously so.
Cal: "To be in act is still muddled"
Me: "What is so difficult to understand about "in a realized state"?"
My response was to ask what was so complicated about "in a realized state", because I honestly do not understand what is difficult about that.
Addressing what you wrote? Obviously so.
Cal: "because it conflates existence as matter, and also existence as matter in motion."
Me: "What?"
My response was to ask what you were talking about, because I have no idea.
Addressing what you wrote? Obviously so.
Cal: "Potential things are said to exist, but they do not exist."
Me: "#1: "Denial that things have potential states (they do)"
#53: "Denial that things have properties, inherent traits and capacities for change, even though they do (not even using A-T terminology and still got denied)"
My response was to point out that it has not been demonstrated that things lack potential states, properties, inherent traits, or the capacity to change. Because they obviously have these things.
Cal: "The first way says that a thing cannot both exist and potentially exist (ugh) in the same way, but that is the conclusion of the first mover (which exists, and also moves things)."
Me: ""Potentially exists" is not synonymous with "moves things"."
My response was to point out that "potentially exists" is not synonymous with "moves things".
Addressing what you wrote? Obviously so.
Cal: "The First Way is supposed to argue that a First Mover is necessary because an infinite regress is impossible; the First Way arbitrarily declares that an infinite regress is impossible without arguing for why that should be the case"
Me: "Actually, he outlines right there in the argument why that should be the case."
My response was to point out that the reason for why that should be the case is outlined in the argument.
Addressing what you wrote? Obviously so.
Cal: "The First Way declares that the First Mover everyone knows to be god without demonstrating this."
Me: "#12: "Denial that objections have been addressed (they were)"
#64: "Ignoring the writings and beliefs of the argument's authors in order to attack a strawman, and calling me arrogant for using the authors' beliefs to interpret the authors' argument, and even claiming that knowing their intent makes me less capable of knowing their intent"
This "objection" has been adequately addressed multiple times by all of us here, particularly bmiller."
My response was to point out that this has been addressed already (several times in fact), and that we know it's not a part of the argument structure because of the comparison of the First Way in the Summa Theologica, which is addressed to established Christians who already believe in God, and the First Way in the Summa Contra Gentiles, which is addressed to unbelievers. The "everyone knows to be god [sic]" line is only in the Christian message and not the missionary message. In other words, by using the writings of the author, we know without a doubt that "everyone knows to be God" is not part of the argument structure.
Explain precisely how inertia defeats the First Way.
Explain precisely how a sustaining force is not required for a caboose to overcome friction and keep moving.
Demonstrate that I don't understand inertia.
Explain what is unclear about "in a realized state".
Explain what is meant by "because it conflates existence as matter, and also existence as matter in motion", perhaps by referring to the premise of the First Way that asserts this.
Demonstrate that things do not have potential states.
Demonstrate that things do not have properties, inherent traits, or capacities for change (same answer as above).
Demonstrate that "potentially exists" is synonymous with "moves things", perhaps by referring to the premise of the First Way or the idea in A-T philosophy that asserts this.
Demonstrate that the First Way does not address why a First Mover would be necessary over an infinite series of movers.
Demonstrate that we have not addressed "everyone understands to be God" multiple times.
Demonstrate that "everyone understands to be God" is part of the argument, since it is not included in the Summa Contra Gentiles (addressed to unbelievers) as it is in the Summa Theologica (addressed to Christians).
Regarding the prediction:
demonstrate that I or any of us was upset (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that any facts have made us appear ridiculous (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that any past facts have made us appear ridiculous (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we chattered amongst ourselves (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we agreed upon a falsehood (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we were trying to avoid feeling ridiculous (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate we are adopting the fallacy of concensus (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we are pretending (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we are acting as a mob, any more than you and Stardusty (3v2, not that different) (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we are adopting ad populum tactics (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
explain the rules of good argument, and explain how we have failed to abide by them (note that, in a crazy twist, "explain" is not synonymous with "assert")
"4a therefore 4 4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a) ... Begging the question. "
In addition to SteveK's latest response, 4 refers to a first mover of an essentially ordered series being necessary while 5 concludes the first mover of 4 must be unmoved.
4a a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another, 5 (5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:
Notice how the phrase "which is not moved" is part of 5 and is not part of 4. Grammar.
>> "4a therefore 4 4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a)"
" I explained this on June 28, 2017 8:28 AM. Haines is answering the question 'why can't it proceed to infinity?' with 2 different sentences that both say the same thing about an infinite series." --You didn't explain anything on the 28th, just a few of your vague words that do not specifically reference the actual words of Aquinas.
" The focus of (a) and (b) is on the the *nature of being*, in this case the nature of the infinite series." --Now you are pulling in woo out of nowhere.
Here is a translation of Aquinas: But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other
This is how Haines chooses to break the argument down: (4) But this cannot proceed to infinity: a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another, b. Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover, in the same way that a cane is not moved unless it is moved by a hand. (5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:
Your vague notions of the meaning of being or whatever are irrelevant to the structure of the argument as worded.
To say Y because X is to say X therefore Y
to say "seeing that" is to say "because"
Aquinas chose the "because" sentence structure. Logical notation uses the "therefore" structure, so one must work backwards to unpack the words of Aquinas into "therefore" structure.
So, working from the full text translation we get "subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover" therefore "there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover" therefore "this cannot go on to infinity"
Using Haines we get 4b therefore 4a therefore 4 U therefore ~~U therefore ~I
I = there is an infinite regress of moved movers U = There is an Unmoved mover.
Later Aquinas says" "Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other" 4 therefore 5 ~I therefore U
To recap U therefore ~~U therefore ~I ~I therefore U
Legion of Logic said... " Demonstrate that "everyone understands to be God" is part of the argument, since it is not included in the Summa Contra Gentiles (addressed to unbelievers) as it is in the Summa Theologica (addressed to Christians)." June 29, 2017 10:19 AM
I will quote David Haines, a now PhD, translator of Latin, and author of the OP. http://philosopherdhaines.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-defense-of-aquinass-first-way.html
" In this article, the fourth article in the blog series Contending for God, sponsored by the Canadian Apologetics Coalition, I will first outline Thomas Aquinas’s first way, then comment on the premises.[1] Aquinas says that this is the most evident or manifest way to demonstrate that God is."
"(5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved: a. and this is what all consider to be God.[13]"
"[13]It should be noted that this conclusion is looking forward to that which Aquinas will then deduce from this conclusion. As Norman Kretzmann, in his commentary on the first book of Aquinas’s Summa Contra Gentiles has remarked, the attribute of a first unmoved mover, even when coupled with the conclusions of Aquinas’s other arguments, cannot be said to be God in the sense of a personal intellectual being that governs the entire universe (Kretzmann, The Metaphysics of Theism, 84-113.). So, it is a bit early to declare the existence of God, properly speaking. However, this declaration is warranted if we consider that the conclusion of this demonstration will allow us to deduce other attributes of this unmoved mover which will permit us to say, without a doubt, that we have demonstrated the existence of what can be properly called God."
Clearly, Legion, Aquinas is making an argument for the existence of God, uppercase G. As such the last phrase "and this is what all consider to be God" is essential to this argument, as without it there is no argument for God, only an argument for a first mover.
Still, Aquinas fails to complete his argument, as Haines alludes to rather apologetically in [13]. Aquinas only argues for a thought of God, the imagination of God, because he only argues for the human understanding of God. Haines apologetically takes this to be an argument for a proper God.
Me: In addition to SteveK's latest response, 4 refers to a first mover of an essentially ordered series being necessary while 5 concludes the first mover of 4 must be unmoved.
4a 'a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another, 5 (5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:'
Notice how the phrase "which is not moved" is part of 5 and is not part of 4. Grammar.
Strawdusty again: Begging the question.
Once again, 4 refers to the first mover being necessary for an essentially ordered series to be in motion. Now that first mover could be moving itself or not moving at all. 5 uses the previous conclusion that material things can't move themselves and the conclusion that an essentially ordered series requires a first mover to come to the final conclusion that the first mover must be unmoved (not moving at all).
There is no question begging: first mover ≠ first mover put in motion by no other
Dusty: "Clearly, Legion, Aquinas is making an argument for the existence of God, uppercase G."
Haines: "Finally, note that this particular demonstration, if it is valid and sound, does not necessarily demonstrate the existence of the triune God of the Christian New Testament; no philosophical demonstration can move from our knowledge of the world to the existence of the triune God of the Christian New Testament. If this demonstration is successful, all that it shows is that some form of Theism is true."
Aquinas: But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. There fore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other
Breakdown:
1. But this cannot go on to infinity 2. because then there would be no first mover 3. and, consequently, no other mover 4. seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. 5. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
Exposition:
1. But this [a series of things being moved by things that are being moved] cannot go onto infinity [one of the two solutions, either there is an infinite series or there is not] 2. because then [if there was an infinity of movers] there would be no first mover [by logical necessity] 3. and consequently [the logical consequence of no first mover] no other mover 4. seeing that subsequent movers [things getting moved by other things] move insomuch as they are put in motion by the first mover [the thing driving the entire series of motion], as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand [illustration of the point]. 5. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other
Now, to write the exact same thing Aquinas wrote except using modern language based on the bracketed thoughts:
But a series of things being moved by things being moved is either infinite or it is not. It cannot be infinite, because if there was an infinite series of movers, then by logical necessity there would be no first mover. But if there was no first mover, then by logical necessity there would be no other mover. After all, things that are getting moved by other things are able to move only to the extent that they are being driven by the source of the series' motion, much like a staff only moves because it is being moved by a hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a source of motion that is itself not being moved by something else.
Breakdown:
1. A series of things being moved by things being moved can either be infinite or it cannot, and the argument proposed it cannot. 2. If the series was infinite, there would logically be no source of motion for the series. 3. If there is no source of motion for the series, there would be no motion in the series. 4. This is because things getting moved by things getting moved can only move to the extent that the source of motion in the series is moving them. A staff being moved by a hand illustrates this point. 5. Therefore there must be a source of motion for things that are being moved by things that are being moved, and this source can't be getting moved by something else or else the problem remains.
Show where begging the question occurs. I have no interest in logical notation, plain English is fine.
Dusty As bmiller correctly stated, U is not part of 4. Only a first mover is part of 4. We know a first mover is required because it's already been established that these series do not move themselves.
Here: "things getting moved can only move to the extent that the source of motion in the series is moving them. " --This presupposes that the natural state of the universe is not motion.
What was the base state of existence? Absolutely nothing at all? This logically would require something to pop out of nothing for no reason, a very great effect without a cause, the effect of creation ex nihilo by no cause.
Eternal existence that was motionless and then began to move? This logically would require something that can move itself, or something that can move something else without itself moving, all while eternally existing.
Eternal existence of stuff in motion? This logically requires and infinite series of real events.
You and Aquinas have merely ad hoc chosen one logical absurdity over another, attempted to hide that choice in a premise, and then use that arbitrary choice to prove your own arbitrary choice.
bmiller said... " 4 refers to the first mover being necessary for an essentially ordered series to be in motion. " --That is begging the question, the assumption that every real series of events must have a first member.
That is an inductive assertion, not a proven realized fact.
All alternatives to the explanation for the origin of motion are irrational. This problem has not been solved and published, ever, by anybody.
All Aquinas does is ad hoc pick a favorite irrationality, make it part of his premise, then use that ad hoc choice between irrationalities to try to make his choice seem rational in circular reasoning.
Legion: "things getting moved can only move to the extent that the source of motion in the series is moving them."
Dusty: "This presupposes that the natural state of the universe is not motion."
How is that begging the question? The natural state a caboose is rest, not motion. Something is required to move it. This is true even if what you say is true.
I think I see what Dusty is getting at. By "begging the question" he means that Aquinas is assuming his metaphysical reality is correct and that Dusty's metaphysical reality is incorrect.
Dusty thinks Aquinas failed to consider these other "irrational explanations" as Dusty likes to call them.
But this charge is false. Aquinas spends a lot of time analyzing and arguing for his metaphysics. The FW argument is rooted in those other arguments. That is not begging the question. He's done the work.
If Dusty thinks Aquinas is wrong, Dusty needs to put forward hundreds of pages of detailed arguments just like Aquinas did. The begging the question charge is false.
" all that it shows is that some form of Theism is true." --Theism requires and existent god, a god outside the imaginations of human beings.
But Aquinas makes an assertion that is false, as well as failing to assert and existent god of any sort, merely falsely asserting "everyone", and only going as far as human thought, or understanding, with no logical connection to an actually existing god of any sort, as is required for theism.
The last phrase is critically important to the First Way as an argument for God, but it utterly fails in every respect.
" 4 refers to the first mover being necessary for an essentially ordered series to be in motion. " --That is begging the question, the assumption that every real series of events must have a first member.
Nonsense. There is nothing circular about arguing for the necessity of a first mover in a series of moving material things.
That is an inductive assertion, not a proven realized fact.
Nonsense. Reasons for a first mover is given in the argument and therefore no "assertion" was made.
All alternatives to the explanation for the origin of motion are irrational. This problem has not been solved and published, ever, by anybody.
I assume you still think the First Way is about the beginning of motion in the ancient past. You are wrong because:
1) Aristotle did not believe the universe had an origin 2) Therefore the "first mover" refers to present motion, not the origin of motion 3) That all knowledgeable scholars and commentators agree with 1) and 2) 4) That relevant passages of Physics were quoted to confirm 2) 5) The English and Latin verbs of any version of the First Way confirm 2)
But it's entertaining to see you maintain the absurdity.
All Aquinas does is ad hoc pick a favorite irrationality, make it part of his premise, then use that ad hoc choice between irrationalities to try to make his choice seem rational in circular reasoning.
Begging the question.
You made a lot of assertions but haven't shown any circularity. I'm coming to the conclusion you don't know what "begging the question" even means.
" I think I see what Dusty is getting at. By "begging the question" he means that Aquinas is assuming his metaphysical reality is correct and that Dusty's metaphysical reality is incorrect." --Close, but I don't have a particular answer to this problem.
I am not here to tell you I have solved this problem. I am here to tell you that you have not solved this problem, Aquinas did not solve this problem, and nobody has solved this problem and published the solution.
" Dusty thinks Aquinas failed to consider these other "irrational explanations" as Dusty likes to call them." --What he considered is not so very important to me. He failed to account for any such considerations in the argument, making his argument logically invalid.
" If Dusty thinks Aquinas is wrong, Dusty needs to put forward hundreds of pages of detailed arguments just like Aquinas did. The begging the question charge is false." --You have it back to front. Aquinas fails to put his work into the argument, instead merely presenting a circular argument that proceeds from 4b to 4a to 4 and back to 4b in the form of 5.
Irrelevant in a discussion of present movers, like the First Way. "First" in first mover is synonymous with "primary", not "original". That God may have initiated motion at some point in the past is tangential to what the First Way is discussing.
" The natural state a caboose is rest, not motion. " --Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion.
Aside from motion in our observable universe every caboose is a buzzing beehive of activity with all its atoms jiggling madly about.
The idea that a caboose is at rest is merely an illusion clung to by those who remain mired in erroneous ancient thinking.
" Irrelevant in a discussion of present movers, like the First Way. "First" in first mover is synonymous with "primary", not "original". That God may have initiated motion at some point in the past is tangential to what the First Way is discussing." --The causation of motion necessarily takes time. In considering an infinity of causation one must necessarily consider an infinity of time.
You seem to have some fuzzy notion of everything having a series of causes in this present instant. Even if that were somehow the case (it isn't) then an infinity of causes would require an infinity of distances, extending out infinitely into space, all of which leads to the absurd notion that causal effects can propagate through the vast reaches of space instantly.
There is no such thing as "present movers". One thing moves an another which moves another in a time sequence of events, necessarily.
" So, no begging the question that I see." --I have best wishes and hope that one day your vision will clear up and improve. You have come a long way since your YEC days, but your journey is not yet at an end.
You seem to have some fuzzy notion of everything having a series of causes in this present instant. Even if that were somehow the case (it isn't) then an infinity of causes would require an infinity of distances, extending out infinitely into space, all of which leads to the absurd notion that causal effects can propagate through the vast reaches of space instantly.
You have just agreed with the First Way's assessment of why an infinite essentially ordered series is not possible.
Me: "The natural state a caboose is rest, not motion" Dusty: "Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion."
And when the force of an engine is applied, it begins to move relative to its current rest position. It's ironic that you're now arguing that Newton was wrong about bodies at rest.
Stardusty: "In considering an infinity of causation one must necessarily consider an infinity of time."
A caboose is coupled to a train and is moving at a steady pace. Why is the caboose moving at a steady pace, rather than slowing and stopping due to friction? Is it because something pushed/pulled it at some point in the past, granting it a steady movement that overcomes friction continuously after the force was removed, or is something actively sustaining it as it moves?
Dusty, >> "You seem to have some fuzzy notion of everything having a series of causes in this present instant. Even if that were somehow the case (it isn't) then an infinity of causes would require an infinity of distances, extending out infinitely into space, all of which leads to the absurd notion that causal effects can propagate through the vast reaches of space instantly."
You're saying that a physical infinity is impossible since the effect will be infinitely away - never to reach us here. You're saying that the series cannot be infinite - which is what the FW says.
" U is not part of 4. Only a first mover is part of 4. " June 30, 2017 8:14 AM
(4) But this cannot proceed to infinity: a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another, b. Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover, in the same way that a cane is not moved unless it is moved by a hand.
"U = There is an Unmoved mover."
There is something about the theistic brain that continually asserts that items plainly written in the argument are somehow not part of that argument. Some sort of selective reading problem?
Stardusty: "Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion."
" Every reasonable person knows exactly why this is entirely irrelevant to the caboose example." --Empty response.
Aquinas is inserting the impossibility of the infinite regress of motion. If you are not willing to extend your thinking to the whole of what is known to exist then you lack the conceptual skills to analyze this problem.
Legion, citing my comment: Cal Metzger: "Per the most recent spate of comments, objects do not need a “sustaining force” to continue moving. This fact is demonstrated broadly. Your misunderstanding of the forces involving motion and friction is what apparently prevents you from understanding this."
Legion, citing what he meant as his responses to my comment: "#44: "Asserting inertia as defeating the First Way (it does not)"
In my comment above I pointed out that objects in motion tend to stay in motion (without needing force applied at the given reference frame in which their motion is recorded — see, objects in space, etc.), and that believing otherwise suggests you don't understand modern physics.
Notice that I didn't say that "inertia (alone) defeats the First Way."
Do you see the difference?
I said two things:
1. Objects in motion do not require a sustaining force (objects will tend to stay in motion given that they are in motion — once an object’s motion is established, that motion will remain until another force acts upon the object, such as friction, a collision, or gravity). 2. You still don't seem to understand this broadly established concept (per your earlier comments, which I’d be happy to cite again, but I have already and I don’t think that’s necessary).
But, to be clear, to the extent that apologists here insist that the First Way contains the premise that motion requires a force at the time of the current reference frame (and that things in motion therefore do not tend to stay in motion), then that is known to be false. Arguments with false premises are unsound, and by the rules of argument they are bad arguments.
So, your first “response” is specious (as has been pointed out in similar comments prior).
When I have time, I will move on to your next “response.”
Cal >> "But, to be clear, to the extent that apologists here insist that the First Way contains the premise that motion requires a force at the time of the current reference frame (and that things in motion therefore do not tend to stay in motion), then that is known to be false. Arguments with false premises are unsound, and by the rules of argument they are bad arguments."
A steel forging press is one example where the FW is stating verifiably correct premises. Referring me to other examples doesn't invalidate this one. You need to deal with this one in order to say the FW is unsound.
Stardusty: "In considering an infinity of causation one must necessarily consider an infinity of time."
" A caboose is coupled to a train and is moving at a steady pace. Why is the caboose moving at a steady pace, rather than slowing and stopping due to friction? Is it because something pushed/pulled it at some point in the past, granting it a steady movement that overcomes friction continuously after the force was removed, or is something actively sustaining it as it moves?" --Why are you only thinking of the caboose? What is causing the locomotive to move? What caused that, and the next, and the next, ad infinitum?
"If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity" --Aquinas cites 3 objects, and then extrapolates to a consideration of an infinity of objects being put in motion. 1. that which is put in motion 2. another 3. another again 4. consideration of infinitely many others.
So, what exactly is being put in motion by what in your example? Fuel is put in motion by a fuel pump. Air is put in motion by atmospheric pressure. The pistons are put in motion by the oxidation reaction of fuel and air. The crankshaft is put in motion by the pistons. The generator is put in motion by the crankshaft. The traction motors are put in motion by the generator. The locomotive wheels are put in motion by the traction motors. The air is put in motion by the locomotive. The first trailing car is put in motion by the locomotive. The second trailing car is put in motion by the first. The caboose is put in motion by the last trailing car.
Of course, I skipped many, many players in this game.
Where did the fuel come from? How did the locomotive get manufactured? Where did the electromagnetic radiation to grow the plants that made the fuel come from? Where did the sun come from? Where did our galaxy come from? Where did our big bang come from?
Aquinas was considering an infinity of causes. Clearly, this can only be considered over vast stretches of time and space.
No reasonable person would limit their thinking on this fundamental riddle in the way you have limited your thinking on this subject.
Stardusty: "If you are not willing to extend your thinking to the whole of what is known to exist then you lack the conceptual skills to analyze this problem."
Perhaps English isn't your first language, but when SteveK says a caboose at rest, he is obviously meaning relative to the surface of the earth. Asserting orbital motion as a response to "a caboose at rest" is asinine.
Stardusty: "Why are you only thinking of the caboose? What is causing the locomotive to move? What caused that, and the next, and the next, ad infinitum?"
You were doing good there, but then you used "caused" instead of "is causing".
Stardusty: "Fuel is put in motion by a fuel pump. Air is put in motion by atmospheric pressure. The pistons are put in motion by the oxidation reaction of fuel and air. The crankshaft is put in motion by the pistons. The generator is put in motion by the crankshaft. The traction motors are put in motion by the generator. The locomotive wheels are put in motion by the traction motors. The air is put in motion by the locomotive. The first trailing car is put in motion by the locomotive. The second trailing car is put in motion by the first. The caboose is put in motion by the last trailing car."
Very, very good. Note that these things are concurrent, in that the effect cannot be sustained if the cause is removed. Remove the fuel pump, the fuel will not flow. Remove atmospheric pressure, air will not flow. Remove combustion, the pistons will not move. Remove the pistons, the crankshaft will not move. Remove the crankshaft, the generator will not move. Remove the generator, the traction motors will not move. Remove the traction motors, the wheels will not move. Remove the locomotive, the first car (and the rest) will not move. This is what makes something an essentially ordered series - the effect is dependent upon a sustaining cause.
Now, contrast that with your next list:
Stardusty: "Where did the fuel come from? How did the locomotive get manufactured? Where did the electromagnetic radiation to grow the plants that made the fuel come from? Where did the sun come from? Where did our galaxy come from? Where did our big bang come from?"
The source of the fuel can be erased, and the fuel will still exist. The manufacturing facility for the locomotive can be dismantled, and the locomotive will still exist. The source of the electromagnetic radiation can be removed, and the fuel that exists will still exist. The source of the sun could be gone and the sun will still exist. Same with the galaxy. Same with the Big Bang. Those are effects that do not depend upon the cause to continue. These things are not part of an essentially ordered series, and thus they are not the subject of the First Way.
" A steel forging press is one example where the FW is stating verifiably correct premises. Referring me to other examples doesn't invalidate this one. You need to deal with this one in order to say the FW is unsound." --Apparently you have not analyzed the motions of a steel forging press in a significant way.
The motor moves the pump, which moves the oil, which moves the cylinder, which moves the die which moves the forging. This all takes time, and to start with the motor is arbitrary. Consider the electricity, the generating station, the fuel, the sun, the galaxy, our big bang.
There is your causal series.
I think you might be thinking of the die coming to a stop or something, dunno. All these motions get converted to molecular motion which is heat.
Heat is motion.
Big wheel keep on turning, Proud Mary keep on burning, rollin, rollin, rollin on a river.
Cal: "In my comment above I pointed out that objects in motion tend to stay in motion (without needing force applied at the given reference frame in which their motion is recorded — see, objects in space, etc.), and that believing otherwise suggests you don't understand modern physics."
Everyone here understands inertia. What some people here apparently doesn't understand is that a caboose cannot overcome friction by itself, but rather needs a sustaining force to maintain motion over the ground, which is what we have been talking about.
Cal: "Notice that I didn't say that "inertia (alone) defeats the First Way."
If there was no example of motion that required a sustaining force to continue, then the First Way would indeed be defeated soundly. Odd that you deny there are such examples but also deny that this defeats the argument, but okay. I concede you did not say that here.
Cal: "once an object’s motion is established, that motion will remain until another force acts upon the object, such as friction, a collision, or gravity"
Everything after "until" is what we are talking about - you have X motion of an object that encounters friction, a collision, gravity, etc. In order for X motion to continue and overcome the encounter, you need a sustaining force - inertia alone won't cut it.
Cal: "You still don't seem to understand this broadly established concept"
Everything I've written demonstrates that I indeed understand inertia.
Cal: "But, to be clear, to the extent that apologists here insist that the First Way contains the premise that motion requires a force at the time of the current reference" frame"
This is not accurate. The First Way requires that there be examples of motion that requires a force at the time of the current reference frame. Aquinas says "If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again." Notice the "if". The "if" is what makes a motion part of an essentially ordered series. In the case of "if not", then it would not be the subject of the First Way.
So to summarize, indeed you did not claim here that inertia alone defeats the First Way, even though it is the logical conclusion of your position if true. However, the accusation of anyone here not understanding inertia has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false.
Me: "Notice that I didn't say that "inertia (alone) defeats the First Way." Legion: "If there was no example of motion that required a sustaining force to continue, then the First Way would indeed be defeated soundly."
Actually, the First Way is clear about this:
The First Way (from the OP): " But, ALL that IS moved, is moved by another."
If there is a single example of motion involving the application of force prior to the current reference frame (and that describes virtually all cases of motion), then the First Way fails on soundness.
So, either you understand inertia, which would mean that you understand that things in motion in the current reference frame were set in motion in a prior reference frame (in which case your understanding of inertia should reveal to you that the premise of the First Way that states that "ALL that IS moved, is moved by another is false),
or
You don't understand inertia, and think that ALL motion as observed in the current reference frame is the result of a force currently appled within that current frame.
And that is why I have suggested that you don't seem to really understand inertia, or respect the rules of argument.
@Cal Either you're saying gravity isn't acting on the object in the current reference frame, or that the current force of gravity does nothing to sustain the motion.
Strawdusty "You seem to have some fuzzy notion of everything having a series of causes in this present instant. Even if that were somehow the case (it isn't) then an infinity of causes would require an infinity of distances, extending out infinitely into space, all of which leads to the absurd notion that causal effects can propagate through the vast reaches of space instantly."
SteveK "You're saying that a physical infinity is impossible since the effect will be infinitely away - never to reach us here. You're saying that the series cannot be infinite - which is what the FW says."
Big wheel keep on turning, Proud Mary keep on burning, rollin, rollin, rollin on a river.
Fourth celebrations are starting early at Strawdusty-ville. �� 2 actual comments that made sense in the same day!
The First Way (from the OP): " But, ALL that IS moved, is moved by another."
If there is a single example of motion involving the application of force prior to the current reference frame (and that describes virtually all cases of motion), then the First Way fails on soundness.
Once again, the First Way is talking about the present tense. It has nothing to say about anything prior to what is happening now.
Even your partner agrees that we can talk about motion in the present without referring to the past:
Strawdusty:"--Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion."
Cal: "Motion involves velocity and direction. Gravity affects motion in relation to these two things. So, any changes in motion (related to gravity) depend on velocity, direction, and the relative location of all gravitational forces."
If gravity affects motion in relation to velocity and direction, then gravity is affecting motion. That's my plain reading of what you said.
Stardusty: "If you are not willing to extend your thinking to the whole of what is known to exist then you lack the conceptual skills to analyze this problem."
" Perhaps English isn't your first language, but when SteveK says a caboose at rest, he is obviously meaning relative to the surface of the earth." --Yes, that is a problem in a discussion about god, or do you suppose god is limited to the sorts of things that go on at the surface of the Earth?
" Asserting orbital motion as a response to "a caboose at rest" is asinine." --Failing to account for motion throughout the universe when arguing for god is asinine.
" Very, very good. Note that these things are concurrent," --No, they all require time to take their action
" in that the effect cannot be sustained if the cause is removed." --Removing a cause prior to the time delay inherent in its operation will cause that operation to fail. Removing a cause after the time delay inherent in its operation will have no effect on operations within that delay window.
You are confusing certain operations that have a small delay relative to human perception with no delay.
" Remove the fuel pump, the fuel will not flow." --No. I you remove the fuel pump the engine will continue to run for a short time.
" Remove atmospheric pressure, air will not flow." --The engine will still run for a short time with the air it already has.
"Remove combustion, the pistons will not move. ... Remove the traction motors, the wheels will not move. Remove the locomotive, the first car (and the rest) will not move." --No, each of these things have actions "in the pipeline", as it were. Removal of each will not cause an instantaneous effect on the caboose.
" This is what makes something an essentially ordered series - the effect is dependent upon a sustaining cause." --You have made a false distinction based on the resolution of your perception and your thinking. When you learn to think more accurately you will find you are making a quantitative, not qualitative distinction.
Stardusty: "Where did the fuel come from? How did the locomotive get manufactured? Where did the electromagnetic radiation to grow the plants that made the fuel come from? Where did the sun come from? Where did our galaxy come from? Where did our big bang come from?"
" The source of the fuel can be erased, and the fuel will still exist." --Only for a period of time. If you remove half the fuel from the tank the remaining half will last about half the time. If you block the fuel at the tank the engine will run for a short time with the fuel in the line. If you block the fuel at the pump the injectors will cause the engine to run for perhaps a second.
" The manufacturing facility for the locomotive can be dismantled, and the locomotive will still exist. The source of the electromagnetic radiation can be removed, and the fuel that exists will still exist. The source of the sun could be gone and the sun will still exist. Same with the galaxy. Same with the Big Bang. " --Your choice of time is arbitrary.
An infinity of 10^20 seconds equals An infinity of 10^-20 seconds
"Those are effects that do not depend upon the cause to continue. These things are not part of an essentially ordered series, and thus they are not the subject of the First Way." --A series is a series. Your thinking suffers from the same defects as Aquinas. If you remove a cause after the cause then the effect is not changed. If you remove a cause before the effect then you have not really removed the cause except as in your thinking, rather, you have changed the situation to prevent the cause and effect from ever happening.
When you learn to think more accurately you will avoid the mistakes of Aquinas.
LoL "Those are effects that do not depend upon the cause to continue. These things are not part of an essentially ordered series, and thus they are not the subject of the First Way." SP --A series is a series. Your thinking suffers from the same defects as Aquinas. If you remove a cause after the cause then the effect is not changed. If you remove a cause before the effect then you have not really removed the cause except as in your thinking, rather, you have changed the situation to prevent the cause and effect from ever happening. When you learn to think more accurately you will avoid the mistakes of Aquinas.
Please note that I was speaking in the vernacular of ancient ignorance that personifies a things as being a "cause".
Cause and effect is a mutual interaction process. If you remove an object that was previously interacting with some other object in a causal interaction in the past then that past causal action will not be undone.
If you remove an object prior to it interacting with another object then no causal interaction between those object occurs.
Human beings tend to assign the title of "cause" to objects. So perhaps in this sense the fuel in the tank is thought of as a "cause". Or perhaps somebody imagines the fuel as a whole collection is causing the engine to run.
In truth individual molecules of fuel are in the tank, then each individual molecule is in the pump, then each is in the fuel line, then each is in the injectors, then each is in the cylinder, then they oxidize, then the atoms in the fuel recombine with atoms from the air and begin to move very rapidly on average pushing against the piston, then each moves out of the cylinder, then each goes through the exhaust system, then each enters the atmosphere and on and on and on.
The notion of an essentially ordered series is a human contrivance intended to analyze and make sense of the way things work. It allows human beings to function on some levels. As an analytical tool in a modern discussion of causality it is irrelevant.
Whatever your abhorrence to logical notation may be the fact is it is used broadly in analyzing the validity of an argument, despite the pitfalls of translating from English to logical notation.
In order for the Time Delay complaint or the Inertia complaint to succeed in undoing the FW, you must show that one or more of the statements in 2a-2f is false per TD or Inertia. I'll list them here with my comments in parenthesis.
a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency[9] to that towards which it is moved. (obvious to me. Nothing can move unless it has the inherent potential to move)
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act.[10] (obvious. It must be in a realized state of actuality)
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act.
d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is[11] in act. (obvious to me. only realized things can interact)
e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in act and in potency in the same sense, but only in a different sense. (obvious to me. The same thing can't be potentially moving per (c) and actually moving per (c) in the same sense)
f. It is therefore impossible that, in the same way and same sense, a thing is moving and is moved,[12] or in other words, that it moves itself. (This would have to be false for your case to succeed. Can you show that?)
g. It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another.
SteveK said... " g. It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another." June 30, 2017 6:32 PM
" Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
So, when Aquinas begs the question he gets to a first mover in 5, which is what he started with in 4b.
This first mover obviously must have acted to impart its first motion in the far distant past, since all causation takes time, and things have obviously been moving each other for a very long time.
How anybody of any significant intelligence could argue that the first mover acted in this instant is truly baffling. Apparently there is some sort of theistic notion that everything in the universe is locked into a ridged mechanism such that cause and effect occur in a zero time chain of events in the present instant with god as the first term in this series. How utterly bizarre.
But as for your point, Steve, how does your g. relate to the asserted first mover of Haines's 5?
Was the first mover always moving? That would not be a violation of "put in motion by no other"
Was the first mover stationary, and them begin to move? Again, that would not be a violation of "put in motion by no other".
Has the first mover always been and remains motionless? Once again, that would not be a violation of "put in motion by no other".
Of course, all 3 choices lead to other irrationalities for other reasons, I'm just wondering which irrationality you prefer.
" One step at a time. I don't see an answer to my question, Dusty. Which statement(s) from 2a-2f are disproven by inertia or time delay?" --All of them that are interpreted individually or in combination to mean any of these items: 1. The first mover acts in zero time in the present instant. 2. The first mover did not act in the distant past to impart the first motion. 3. Motion is not self sustaining. 4. Motion requires a sustaining cause.
" Earth to Strawdusty: We can all read your responses to SteveK, Legion and bmiller. So we all can tell when your answers are inconsistent when addressing the same subject."
If you would be so kind as to point out very specifically where and how exactly I have supposedly contradicted myself I will be forever indebted to you for the favor.
Cal: "If there is a single example of motion involving the application of force prior to the current reference frame (and that describes virtually all cases of motion), then the First Way fails on soundness."
No, because that would be accidentally ordered, and thus not the subject of the First Way. Since simple observation demonstrates the existence of essentially ordered series, the only way to avoid a first mover is to either demonstrate how an infinite series of movers can be in operation together, or to offer a third option.
Cal: "or"
You left out the third and correct option - I understand inertia, and I also understand that what occurred in the past is irrelevant as to whether a motion can be sustained now without being moved by something else, like a caboose rolling over the ground. That the motion began in the past is utterly irrelevant to whether the caboose can sustain its motion without the engine pulling the train (it cannot, due to friction), and thus it is utterly irrelevant to the subject of the First Way.
Thus, you gave a false dilemma, which is not good argumentation. And I have demonstrated at length that I understand inertia, so you do yourself no favors continuously making that baseless accusation.
Stardusty: "Yes, that is a problem in a discussion about god [sic], or do you suppose god [sic] is limited to the sorts of things that go on at the surface of the Earth?"
I honestly have no idea how you could possibly conclude discussing a train on the ground is somehow problematic in the manner you are approaching it from, which is a very irrelevant manner.
Stardusty: "No, they all require time to take their action"
Haha I am getting a kick out of you and Cal thinking you are refuting us, when you are either missing or intentionally dodging the point. Concurrent in the series means that if the mover is taken away, the moved will not be able to sustain its motion. It does not require some sort of ridiculous instantaneous cessation of motion or some bizarre timeless event like you two are strawmanning.
Stardusty: "Removing a cause after the time delay inherent in its operation will have no effect on operations within that delay window."
And this defeats the First Way or refutes my point how...?
Stardusty: "You are confusing certain operations that have a small delay relative to human perception with no delay."
That's incredible, since I am not doing that and have never done that.
Stardusty: "I you remove the fuel pump the engine will continue to run for a short time."
And then will stop, much like I said.
Stardusty: "The engine will still run for a short time with the air it already has."
And then will stop, much like I said.
Stardusty: "Removal of each will not cause an instantaneous effect on the caboose."
Thank you for refuting something I never said. However, very quickly the motion in question will begin tapering off, in some cases so quickly that we could not even perceive the instant in which the motion continued. Which is in accordance with what I have said.
Stardusty: "When you learn to think more accurately you will find you are making a quantitative, not qualitative distinction."
When you learn to think more accurately you will begin addressing my actual points and won't hide behind strawman arguments.
Stardusty: "Only for a period of time"
Yes...?
Stardusty: "If you remove a cause after the cause then the effect is not changed. If you remove a cause before the effect then you have not really removed the cause except as in your thinking, rather, you have changed the situation to prevent the cause and effect from ever happening."
Neither of these is an essentially ordered series, which you have yet to demonstrate is invalid. When you learn to think more accurately you will be able to address the actual topic.
I did not respond to your second post to me because none of it is relevant until you get to the notation.
1. A series of things being moved by things being moved can either be infinite or it cannot, and the argument proposed it cannot.
2. If the series was infinite, there would logically be no source of motion for the series.
3. If there is no source of motion for the series, there would be no motion in the series.
4. This is because things getting moved by things getting moved can only move to the extent that the source of motion in the series is moving them. A staff being moved by a hand illustrates this point.
5. Therefore there must be a source of motion for things that are being moved by things that are being moved, and this source can't be getting moved by something else or else the problem remains.
Me: "If there is a single example of motion involving the application of force prior to the current reference frame (and that describes virtually all cases of motion), then the First Way fails on soundness." Legion: "No, because that would be accidentally ordered, and thus not the subject of the First Way. Since simple observation demonstrates the existence of essentially ordered series, the only way to avoid a first mover is to either demonstrate how an infinite series of movers can be in operation together, or to offer a third option."
It's weird you would think this is an objection; if some things that move are not caused to move by another, then there is no need for a first mover.
It's also incompatible with the plain text of the argument itself -- some things move, AND ALL things that move are moved by another.
@Cal >> "It's also incompatible with the plain text of the argument itself -- some things move, AND ALL things that move are moved by another."
If it's incompatible you should be able to identify the incompatibility. I asked you to tell us which statement in 2a-2f is false. If you cannot find a false statement then then 2g is true. This is how good argumentation works.
@Cal >> "It's weird you would think this is an objection; if some things that move are not caused to move by another, then there is no need for a first mover."
Please comment on what I said in response to your comment on gravity acting in the current reference frame.
Me: "If gravity affects motion in relation to velocity and direction, then gravity is affecting motion. That's my plain reading of what you said."
Dusty This trivia question isn't relevant to the debate we are having, but I'm curious to know your answer.
" A solid steel rod in space 2 light years in length is moved by Joe Astronaut pushing one end of the rod continuously at a speed of 1 m/s." --It will break
" a)How much time passes before the other end begins to move?" --Assuming it didn't break that depends on the compressiblity of the material.
" b)During that time delay, is the rod being deformed? By how much?" --Yes, ask a mechanical engineer to model it for you and you can get a fairly close answer.
" Earth to Strawdusty: We can all read your responses to SteveK, Legion and bmiller. So we all can tell when your answers are inconsistent when addressing the same subject."
If you would be so kind as to point out very specifically where and how exactly I have supposedly contradicted myself I will be forever indebted to you for the favor.
I pointed out you were inconsistent in when responding to each of us, as if you thought none of us could see your responses to the others. Specifically regarding your changing charge of "begging the question" in the exchanges listed below.
Strawdusty to SteveK: "4a therefore 4 4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a) ... Begging the question. " June 28, 2017 9:36 PM
bmiller to Strawdusty: There is no question begging: first mover ≠ first mover put in motion by no other June 30, 2017 7:50 AM
Strawdusty to bmiller: bmiller said... " 4 refers to the first mover being necessary for an essentially ordered series to be in motion. " --That is begging the question, the assumption that every real series of events must have a first member.
June 30, 2017 8:29 AM
Changing your "begging the question" assertion from 5 being a rewording of 4a to somehow 4 itself "begging the question"
Strawdusty to Legion: 4b therefore 4a therefore 4 4 therefore 4b (slightly reworded in 5)
June 30, 2017 5:45 PM:
Back to making disproven assertion to Legion rather than the new one you made up on June 30, 2017 8:29 AM.
Dusty >> "All of them that are interpreted individually or in combination to mean any of these items:
" So which 2a-2f statement is false, if any?" --Asked and answered
" The only hope you have of refuting an argument is to identify a false statement." --No, arguments are shown to be invalid or otherwise unsound by a variety of means. Singling out one false premise, such as in Haines's 5b, is just one method.
You tell me, which ones fit that interpretation? To me the language itself is ambiguous as to act meaning existence or something else, how a potential thing can be said to exist at all, and inspecific as to the sorts of things that cause other sorts of things. The language is mostly just useless, so you tell me how you interpret it.
I did not respond to your second post to me because none of it is relevant until you get to the notation.
" 1. A series of things being moved by things being moved can either be infinite or it cannot, and the argument proposed it cannot." --By circular reasoning, as I clearly demonstrated by several means.
" 2. If the series was infinite, there would logically be no source of motion for the series." --In that case motion is the natural state of existence and no first term is required.
" 4. This is because things getting moved by things getting moved can only move to the extent that the source of motion in the series is moving them. A staff being moved by a hand illustrates this point." --The staff continues to move, as motion does not require force to sustain it.
3,162 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1801 – 2000 of 3162 Newer› Newest»Legion: "We must live in different universes, because I have never seen a train moving without an engine."
So, per Stardusty's response to you, you deny inertia?
mkay.
Legion: "Of course, water freezes into ice in my universe, too. Perhaps you should visit, it's a fascinating place."
The implication being that Stardusty has denied that ice can be a state of water? That implication would be a lie.
So, is this what your defense of the First Way looks like, after all this? Non sequiturs, and lies about skeptics responses and positions? I realize that that is, per apologetics, a common tactic, but I was holding out hopes that you would rise above that.
Are you ever going to do what you said you would do? Actually defend the First Way from the criticisms offered, enumerating the many ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument?
Legion: "If you remove the engine, will the caboose sustain its movement?"
Dusty: "Yes, of course, the caboose keeps rolling."
You've answered the wrong question. It keeps rolling due to inertia, yes. Will the same motion sustain itself continuously without the engine? No.
Dusty: "If it were a rocket engine in space then yes, the spacecraft keeps moving"
Here we ask the question Cal does not want to discuss. Does this sustained motion lack a causal force influencing the motion? Considering gravity is a causal force, the answer is no.
A body at rest has causes all around it that keep it at rest. Other things exist that work to keep it in a sustained state of rest. This is easily demonstrated by removing one or more things to create a causal imbalance.
What about a body in sustained motion? Do other things exist that work to keep it in a sustained state of motion, or is literally NOTHING required to sustain the motion? The skeptics say nothing is required - it moves by itself, needing no other thing, forever and ever - but I'm skeptical of that claim no matter how many times it is repeated.
Legion "Legion: "If you remove the engine, will the caboose sustain its movement?"
Stardusty: "Yes, of course, the caboose keeps rolling."
stevek: "You've answered the wrong question."
Nope. Stardusty answered THE question ("... will the caboose sustain its movement?")
You changed the question ("Will the SAME motion sustain itself CONTINUOUSLY...?) after Stardusty answered it.
Do apologists think every time they lie that it makes their beliefs seem like they're based on reality, or on lies?
Because I think it makes it seem like their beliefs are based on lying.
Which explains a lot, doesn't it? If you're defending a belief system that depends on denying reality, it makes sense that lying would be a comfortable tactic for defending this belief. It certainly explains the vast difference in the two approaches to analyzing the argument and its criticism undertaken by the two sides here so far.
stevek in particular is a relentless liar.
stevek is an apologist.
I wonder if those two things are related.
You know, I'll bet they are!
stevek: "The skeptics say nothing is required - it moves by itself, needing no other thing, forever and ever - but I'm skeptical of that claim no matter how many times it is repeated."
Seriously? Why would you imagine that others care what an ignorant, stupid, and lying apologist misunderstands about physics?
Will the SAME motion sustain itself CONTINUOUSLY...?
Sustain means to continue without interruption. If the current motion is interrupted then that motion has not been sustained.
Only in the land of skepticism does sustain mean to continue for a while.
Since Cal cannot be bothered to back up his statements, his criticisms of the FW remain unsupported claims.
stevek: "Sustain means to continue without interruption. If the current motion is interrupted then that motion has not been sustained."
Idiocy. Lies.
3rd definition, from Merriam Webster: "keep up, prolong"
In music, a sustaining note has long been understood to be a long, but fading, sound.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustain
stevek is an apologist. stevek relentless lies.
If apologists relentlessly lie, what does that say about apologetics?
The motion of the caboose is caused by the engine. The long, but fading motion of the caboose is due to the existence of the engine. Without an engine the long, but fading motion of the caboose could not exist.
Sounds just like the FW.
(1) An engine is required for all motion
(2) The absence of a currently present (now) engine will result in motion that is long and fading
(a) The universe is in motion, therefore (1) is the case
(b) The ever-faster expanding motion of the universe is not showing itself to be long and fading, therefore (2) is not the present case (now)
(c) Because (2) is not the case now, an engine is currently present
Cal: "So, per Stardusty's response to you, you deny inertia?"
The fact that it doesn't come to a full stop instantaneously does nothing to defeat the fact that the motion of the caboose cannot be sustained without something acting upon it. The caboose will without question come to a stop, because the motion cannot be sustained.
Cal: "The implication being that Stardusty has denied that ice can be a state of water?"
Stardusty has done everything but acknowledge that ice is a state of water. Quote where he said otherwise, because I recall nothing but appeals to quantum levels trying to deny that water in fact freezes into ice in anything but a rough macro approximation.
Cal: "So, is this what your defense of the First Way looks like, after all this? Non sequiturs, and lies about skeptics responses and positions?"
I love how skeptics think that if they assert things, those things are true.
Cal: "Are you ever going to do what you said you would do? Actually defend the First Way from the criticisms offered"
I've been doing so for 1800 posts now. Your failure to recognize that fact doesn't change reality.
I remain wholly unimpressed with puerile insults toward Christians and naked assertions. Show that the First Way is a bad argument without relying on bald assertions or fallacies (hint: typing "non sequitur" is not a valid criticism), and actually stay on topic. Because if this thread is supposed to show the superiority of skeptics to apologists, you have failed far beyond your ability to comprehend it.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Yes, of course, the caboose keeps rolling."
" We must live in different universes,"
--Indeed it seems that way. I invite you to leave the universe of your Aristotelian imagination and enter the universe of modern science.
" because I have never seen a train moving without an engine"
--I have. Railroad cars do in fact move without an engine connected at the time they are moving, either due to gravity or inertia. This is done in a classification yard and is called "humping".
Inertia is the more interesting reason in this context.
"Perhaps you should visit, it's a fascinating place."
--Have you visited space? In space inertia is much more apparent and the errors of Aristotle you seem fixated on are obvious. The visible objects in our universe are in space. In between the molecules you breath is space.
Consider a train backing up at 50mph. Then the coupler to the caboose disconnects and the rest of the train slams on the brakes. Bye bye caboose, it's motion is sustained without an engine attached.
What do you suppose does this? Do angels continue to push the caboose? Do angels keep the Earth spinning on its axis? Perhaps angels nudge the Earth along in its orbit about the sun?
The motion of an object is self sustaining. In modern science that is called inertia.
June 23, 2017 6:03 AM
SteveK said...
" Do other things exist that work to keep it in a sustained state of motion, or is literally NOTHING required to sustain the motion?"
--No additional force is required. No additional energy input is required.
On Earth there are always nearby objects to apply a slowing force. That is what led to the errors of Aristotle.
Aristotle did not understand the underlying mechanisms of what we observe as friction.
" The skeptics say nothing is required - it moves by itself, needing no other thing, forever and ever - but I'm skeptical of that claim no matter how many times it is repeated."
--Skepticism is good, but I suggest you consider the evidence of our space program. This principle you are skeptical about is shown to be the case every time we send another probe to a distant planet.
If there is an error in the modern understanding of inertia it must be an infinitesimal error given the literally astronomical degree of accuracy to which these scientific facts have been demonstrated.
June 23, 2017 8:08 AM
Me: " An engine is required for all motion"
We know the motion involved an engine thus the FW is correct in identifying this fact of reality.
Dusty: "The motion of an object is self sustaining. In modern science that is called inertia"
Me: "Skeptics say nothing is required - it moves by itself, needing no other thing, forever and ever - but I'm skeptical of that claim no matter how many times it is repeated"
Legion: "The fact that it doesn't come to a full stop instantaneously does nothing to defeat the fact that the motion of the caboose cannot be sustained without something acting upon it."
Outside the friction of earth's atmosphere, satellites sustain their trajectory without something else acting upon it. Therefore, by the rules of logic, it is false that ALL things are moved by another (the satellite sustains its movement, even after the launch vehicle has stopped putting the satellite into motion), and thus, by the rules of argument, this version of the First Way fails.
An argument with an unsound premise is, by the rules of argument, a bad argument.
Legion: "Stardusty has done everything but acknowledge that ice is a state of water. Quote where he said otherwise, because I recall nothing but appeals to quantum levels trying to deny that water in fact freezes into ice in anything but a rough macro approximation."
mkay.
Stardusty: "Properties of sub quark level fields lead to the macro level observation we call "ice". "
You tried to fob that off as, "...trying to deny that water in fact freezes into ice...."
So, in apologetics land, increased precision and careful definition of terms somehow = denial . This is faulty thinking on your part. Faulty thinking stands in the way of arriving at rational beliefs. Faulty thinking is also, per the criticisms of the First Way enumerated here and the "defenses" offers so far, the only apparent way one could deny the problems in the First Way.
Me: "So, is this what your defense of the First Way looks like, after all this? Non sequiturs, and lies about skeptics responses and positions?"
Legion: "I love how skeptics think that if they assert things, those things are true."
It's true (based on my prior citations) that there have been non sequiturs and lies. So, those things are, by the rules of argument, true. Also, I asked you a question, which (although it did contain premises, which are based on my prior citations), is not an assertion per se.
Me: ""Are you ever going to do what you said you would do? Actually defend the First Way from the criticisms offered""
Legion: "I've been doing so for 1800 posts now. Your failure to recognize that fact doesn't change reality."
mkay.
Legion: "Show that the First Way is a bad argument without relying on bald assertions or fallacies (hint: typing "non sequitur" is not a valid criticism), and actually stay on topic."
A non sequitur is a valid criticism for a defense of an argument that does not address the failing revealed by the criticism.
I have repeatedly (and repeatedly) asked you to stay on topic, and resume what you said you would do. You don't seem capable of following through.
Legion: "Because if this thread is supposed to show the superiority of skeptics to apologists, you have failed far beyond your ability to comprehend it."
You make yourself appear delusional.
Dusty,
>> "This principle you are skeptical about is shown to be the case every time we send another probe to a distant planet"
No it doesn't. There exists heat, energy, magnetism, gravity, expanding space, black holes, etc, etc - many other things that serve to sustain an existing motion.
To demonstrate that you are correct you'd need to SHOW that no existing thing sustains a motion. All you've done is assumed that is the case.
Legion of Logic said...
Cal: "So, per Stardusty's response to you, you deny inertia?"
" The fact that it doesn't come to a full stop instantaneously does nothing to defeat the fact that the motion of the caboose cannot be sustained without something acting upon it. "
--Just the opposite is the case.
The motion of the caboose will be sustained indefinitely unless something acts upon it to stop it.
"The caboose will without question come to a stop, because the motion cannot be sustained."
--No. The caboose comes to a stop because the self sustaining motion of the caboose is acted against.
It doesn't stop because it needs force to sustain motion. It stops because force is applied to stop it.
People thinking like you are why Aristotelian physics was accepted for some 2000 years. It seems to make so much sense, yet it is so fundamentally wrong.
June 23, 2017 9:57 AM
The >> "It doesn't stop because it needs force to sustain motion."
This is a theory that lacks verification. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're welcome to believe in sort of magic, just don't claim science has observed the absence of ANY force acting to sustain motion when it has not.
Stardusty: "People thinking like you are why Aristotelian physics was accepted for some 2000 years. It seems to make so much sense, yet it is so fundamentally wrong."
Show me a train in space for us to study, and I'll concede you have a point. Otherwise, you're attacking a strawman. On Earth, which has 100 percent of all known trains, a caboose will most certainly come to a halt unless its motion is sustained by something else. And this sustaining force is what is being discussed in the First Way.
>> "It stops because force is applied to stop it"
When the stopping force is extremely small, it looks as if the motion can go on forever and ever - but in truth it cannot do that.
Which is the actual situation out in deep space - a complete absence of any stopping forces or the existence of extremely small stopping forces?
What has science demonstrated?
Cal: "Outside the friction of earth's atmosphere, satellites sustain their trajectory without something else acting upon it."
Let's say for the sake of argument that there is no property of mass that inertia is dependent upon (which I don't actually believe) - if something moving under inertia literally moved without being contingent upon anything at all, then it is part of an accidentally ordered series, whereas the First Way covers essentially ordered series in which the cause is sustaining the effect. Either way, this objection does not harm the First Way.
Cal: "mkay"
Glad you agree.
Legion: "I recall nothing but appeals to quantum levels trying to deny that water in fact freezes into ice in anything but a rough macro approximation."
Cal (quoting Stardusty): "Properties of sub quark level fields lead to the macro level observation we call "ice"
Yes, that is what I said. Thank you for supporting me. Also, there's this.
Legion: "does water freeze into ice?"
Stardusty: "--From the viewpoint of a human being, yes."
Notice the avoidance of simply saying "yes". If you call this being more precise, then there's really nothing else to be said. In my universe, though, water freezes into ice.
Cal: "A non sequitur is a valid criticism for a defense of an argument that does not address the failing revealed by the criticism."
An accusation of a non sequitur is a bald assertion that can be ignored unless the non sequitur is pointed out specifically so it can be addressed. There are too many posts for me to try and figure out what you're talking about. Throwing out a list of fallacies is not a criticism.
Cal: "I have repeatedly (and repeatedly) asked you to stay on topic, and resume what you said you would do."
You proved yourself unable to follow along, so why should I continue doing something that is completely futile? The whole point was for you to grasp each premise so the point of the next premise would be understood, and you never even grasped the first few premises.
Cal: "You make yourself appear delusional."
No one with a grasp on reality would agree with you. See how easy baseless assertions are to refute? That's why I ask you to stop making them, and actually back up your assertions.
Legion: "Show me a train in space for us to study, and I'll concede you have a point."
Okay.
https://theskylive.com/voyager1-tracker
Legion: "On Earth, which has 100 percent of all known trains, a caboose will most certainly come to a halt unless its motion is sustained by something else."
At this point, I have to say that you are being willfully ignorant.
Legion: "And this sustaining force is what is being discussed in the First Way."
Which is an unsound understanding of how motion occurs, which in turn makes that version of the First Way fail, by the rules of argument.
I think I'm done explaining this. Willful ignorance is beyond even my powers to fix.
Here, for everyone to see, is the true stance of the apologist, summed up in 4 succinct words:
stevek: "What has science demonstrated?"
In response to claims about science it is reasonable to ask what has science demonstrated.
That is the true stance of apologists everywhere.
SteveK said...
" In response to claims about science it is reasonable to ask what has science demonstrated.
That is the true stance of apologists everywhere."
--It is also the stance of "true" scientists.
Science is self consciously and acutely self aware of its own provisional nature, or at least it "should" be.
Any scientist who fails to apply that fundamental skepticism to himself/herself has missed out on a core of science "properly" done.
I can only applaud any person who questions all our most fundamental notions of anything and everything. All I ask is that you examine the evidence that has in fact been gained in conjunction with scientific theory, scientific fact, and what those things mean.
Jay Gould has a classic work on the subject. Most atheists disagree with his assertion of separate magisteria, but he discusses fact versus theory, in this case as it applies to evolution, but the principles remain throughout science.
http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html
June 23, 2017 1:32 PM
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "People thinking like you are why Aristotelian physics was accepted for some 2000 years. It seems to make so much sense, yet it is so fundamentally wrong."
" Show me a train in space for us to study, and I'll concede you have a point. "
--Every train, like everything else, is in space. Our atmosphere is mostly empty space. What is called near space is also just as validly called upper atmosphere, even though satellites can orbit there for years without any further propulsion.
The difference is a matter of quantity, not quality.
"Otherwise, you're attacking a strawman. On Earth, which has 100 percent of all known trains, a caboose will most certainly come to a halt unless its motion is sustained by something else."
--No, 100% of all known trains will sustain their motion indefinitely unless acted upon by a braking force.
The braking force of the surrounding fluid (air) and the braking force of the bearing friction, and the braking force of the wheel to track friction are all well known, studied, modeled, and measured forces.
These braking forces stop the train.
Since those braking forces are not sufficient for practical railroad operations braking mechanisms are designed into the train to act against the natural tendency of the train to sustain motion.
The locomotive engineer, or driver, is well aware of the sustained motion of the train. Spotting a car on the tracks ahead while at speed is a terrible experience for any train driver, knowing that the motion of the train is sustained unless enough braking force can be applied. Unfortunately, even with maximum braking effort the nature of sustained motion is such that the engineer cannot stop the train in time, hence the collision and likely loss of life.
" And this sustaining force is what is being discussed in the First Way."
--Hence a fundamental error of Aquinas and all those who still cling to his long discredited notions.
June 23, 2017 12:15 PM
Legion: “Let's say for the sake of argument that there is no property of mass…”
Mass is a property.
Legion: “… that inertia is dependent upon (which I don't actually believe)…”
What? Inertia is a description of how objects behave regarding changes to their motion. An objects mass is related (in a linear way) to its inertia.
Legion: “…if something moving under inertia…”
Things don’t move “under inertia.” Things move. Inertia describes that things resistance to changes in its motion.
Legion: “…literally moved without being contingent upon anything at all…”
Inertia is about contingency — inertia describes, in amazingly accurate ways, the exact amount of force required to alter an object’s current state of motion. An object’s change in motion is contingent on that object’s mass and its current state of motion. That is inertia.
Legion: “…then it is part of an accidentally ordered series, whereas the First Way covers essentially ordered series in which the cause is sustaining the effect. Either way, this objection does not harm the First Way.”
By falsely distinguishing between objects that do and do not have inertia, this version of the First Way fails because all objects have inertia. Because there is variety in the kinds of friction that objects may encounter doesn’t change the observed fact that all objects have inertia.
@Strawdusty,
Legion:"Show me a train in space for us to study, and I'll concede you have a point. Otherwise, you're attacking a strawman. On Earth, which has 100 percent of all known trains, a caboose will most certainly come to a halt unless its motion is sustained by something else. And this sustaining force is what is being discussed in the First Way."
"Otherwise, you're attacking a strawman. On Earth, which has 100 percent of all known trains, a caboose will most certainly come to a halt unless its motion is sustained by something else."
--No, 100% of all known trains will sustain their motion indefinitely unless acted upon by a braking force.
See the italicized portions. You just agreed with Legion.
Whatever it is that is sustaining motion in any particular case of a moving material thing is the topic of the First Way.
So now I'm willfully ignorant for believing that a moving caboose on Earth will come to a halt if there is no sustaining force moving it.
Welp.
@Legion
It's called distraction. The train example demonstrates the FW so instead of dealing with that they say "look over here!!" to avoid dealing with the uncomfortable conclusion.
SteveK,
I suppose that is the most charitable explanation that fits the evidence.
@Legion,
The thing is, whatever is moving the train - it too is being subjected to the braking forces that the train is subject to - which means whatever is moving the train is slowing down just like the train is. Nothing in the equation is without a braking force so why bring it up?
You bring it up as a distraction, that's why.
Legion: "So now I'm willfully ignorant for believing that a moving caboose on Earth will come to a halt if there is no sustaining force moving it."
Nope. You appear willfully ignorant because you don't seem to know about inertia, friction, spacecraft, satellites, and vast array of demonstrations of these concepts and objects, as well as their implications to the simplistic concept of physics you are touting.
You appear willfully ignorant because you seem to believe that your example of a train overrides the more sophisticated and precise description of all the physical forces involved, and that are more accurately described by modern physics.
You seem willfully ignorant because you seem to think that a pushing force is needed to maintain inertia, when it's long been understood that friction is the (opposing) pushing force that operates on an object's inertia. (This concept shouldn't blow your mind, but somehow it seems to have.)
You seem willfully ignorant because rather than do the difficult work of painstakingly defining your terms and carefully analyzing the First Way, which you had earlier vowed you would do, you seem content to avoid this task and retain your mistakes above.
Legion: "An accusation of a non sequitur is a bald assertion that can be ignored unless the non sequitur is pointed out specifically so it can be addressed."
I thought this should have been obvious.
You had said,
Legion: "Of course, water freezes into ice in my universe, too. Perhaps you should visit, it's a fascinating place."
This was a non sequitur because, for reasons I had already explained, Stardusty doesn't actually deny that ice is a macro-approximation. As I pointed out, Stardusty had said,
Stardusty: "Properties of sub quark level fields lead to the macro level observation we call "ice."
it DOESN'T FOLLOW (that is what non sequitur means) that one should surmise that Stardusty thinks he occupies a universe where one does not make the macro level observation for what we call "ice." One could surmise this from his words, where he acknowledges the existence of what we call "ice."
In the case above, a non sequitur is probably the kindest way I could characterize what you written. Other terms, like misrepresentation and strawmanning were probably more apt.
Apologist: I need to go to the bathroom.
Skeptic: You are willfully ignorant.
Apologist: Huh?
Skeptic: You obviously know nothing of the digestive system, how the stomach, intestines, or kidneys work, let alone the importance of helpful bacteria. Nor do you seem aware of modern food production and distribution methods, or the functionality of indoor plumbing.
Apologist: What the hell?
Skeptic: Just admit how ignorant you sound saying you have to "go to the bathroom".
Apologist: I don't...what?
"Yes, from a certain point of view" is different than "yes". I asked if water froze into ice and was not told "yes". I correctly pointed out that I was given a huge runaround about quantum mechanics, which is not "yes".
I stand by my assessment, since it is correct.
Legion: "Yes, from a certain point of view" is different than "yes". I asked if water froze into ice and was not told "yes". I correctly pointed out that I was given a huge runaround about quantum mechanics, which is not "yes". "
I think the above statement from Legion sums up a position of willful ignorance quite nicely.
Willfully Ignorant: "I asked a question, and was given a careful, precise answer that made things seem complicated and hard. So I misrepresented what I read and investigated no further."
Textbook.
Legion of Logic said...
" a moving caboose on Earth will come to a halt if there is no sustaining force moving it."
--"sustaining force" is not a real variety of force.
There is just "force". Motion continues as it is until a force is applied, then motion changes.
It doesn't matter what the object is composed of, what the shape of the object is, or where the object is located with respect to our planet.
Forces do not come in varieties of sustaining force or non-sustaining force as a realization external to human thought.
You can imagine that all the braking forces on a train have a magnitude of X. Then you can imagine force in the opposite direction with the same magnitude and you can label that force "sustaining" if that somehow helps you solve some sort of force calculation problem.
The danger in that sort of labeling is to then extrapolate your mere label of computational convenience to be some sort of universal truth that there must therefore be some kind of universal sustaining force, imagining that motion somehow needs a force to sustain it.
Motion does not have a general need for a sustaining force. In some environments there are objects present to impart a braking force on other moving objects.
How does any of this basic physics somehow argue for god in any way?
June 23, 2017 7:52 PM
Getting back to argument...
Temporal origins: not a good criticism. When a specific act occurs is not relevant to the argument.
Time delay: not a good criticism. When a specific act occurs is not relevant to the argument.
Newton: not a good criticism. Things that tend to stay in motion are put in motion by another. This is consistent with the FW argument.
Modern science: not a good criticism.
bluffing, posturing and ridiculing: not a good criticism
SteveK said...
" Getting back to argument..."
--By all means...
" Temporal origins: not a good criticism. When a specific act occurs is not relevant to the argument."
--Right. It was a couple folks here that claimed a first mover could somehow not have imparted the first motion in the past, a preposterous assertion.
" Newton: not a good criticism. Things that tend to stay in motion are put in motion by another. This is consistent with the FW argument."
--Indeed, what imparted the first motion, so very long ago? Or were the things in the universe always moving?
To for X to change Y it is necessary that X also change. So that leads to several possibilities, all of which are irrational.
" Modern science: not a good criticism."
--When proposed solutions contradict modern science then modern science becomes a good criticism, although I agree, simply blurting out "because...science!" is not specific enough.
I am not here to tell you I have the answer to this great existential riddle. I am here to tell you that you do not have the answer, Aquinas did not express the answer, and no answer has ever been shown to be the case or even logically sound.
@Strawdusty,
--Right. It was a couple folks here that claimed a first mover could somehow not have imparted the first motion in the past, a preposterous assertion.
This is simply false. No one has made such a claim.
^^^^
However, we have had some claim that present tense verbs imply past action.
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
--Right. It was a couple folks here that claimed a first mover could somehow not have imparted the first motion in the past, a preposterous assertion.
" This is simply false. No one has made such a claim."
--Very well then, since the first mover necessarily imparted the first motion in the past the First Way must necessarily refer to past events.
At last we agree.
June 24, 2017 1:46 PM
@Strawdusty,
--Very well then, since the first mover necessarily imparted the first motion in the past the First Way must necessarily refer to past events.
At last we agree.
Sorry. In order for the First Way to be referring to past events, it would have to use verbs that imply past action. Since it doesn't, then it cannot be referring to past events. If you think it does use verbs implying past action then please point them out.
The First Way simply does not address what you claim it does.
bmiller: "Sorry. In order for the First Way to be referring to past events, it would have to use verbs that imply past action."
False. On many levels.
1. I am happier today.
The above is a sentence that uses the first person present tense of the verb to be. And it ineluctably refers to past (as well as current events).
2. The First Way is about motion in the present, and motion in the present is IMPOSSIBLE without a prior (past) reference frame.
3. No amount of grammar changes the requirement that a premise be sound. If that were not the case, time travel would be possible by simply writing in the future tense.
@Cal,
1. I am happier today.
The above is a sentence that uses the first person present tense of the verb to be. And it ineluctably refers to past (as well as current events).
Your sentence looks incomplete.
I am happier today than you. This is a present tense statement.
I am happier today than I was yesterday. This is a mixed tense statement. Mixed tenses are not found in the First Way.
2. The First Way is about motion in the present, and motion in the present is IMPOSSIBLE without a prior (past) reference frame.
Instaneous velocity is about motion in the present and you won't pass a physics course without understanding it. Your speedometer indicates the instaneous speed of your vehicle and the officer will still give you that ticket regardless of what your vehicle did in the past.
3. No amount of grammar changes the requirement that a premise be sound. If that were not the case, time travel would be possible by simply writing in the future tense.
Sure, but you need to understand the grammar to understand the argument. The First Way is about the simultaneous motion of an essentially ordered series happening in the present and the first mover of that type of series. It's not about a "first mover" that somehow started a series of time sequential events stretching back to the ancient past because, for one reason, Aristotle thought there was no "first mover" in that sense. He thought that the motion of the universe was eternal, did not have a temporal beginning and therefore would have no such "first mover".
bmiller said...
" Instaneous velocity is about motion in the present and you won't pass a physics course without understanding it. "
--You obviously do not understand that instantaneous velocity is an abstraction since velocity is distance/time. If time is zero velocity is undefined.
"Your speedometer indicates the instaneous speed of your vehicle"
--You obviously do not understand that either. In a modern car velocity is calculated by an on board computer that samples distance measurements over short periods of time, performs the distance/time calculation, and displays it.
The shallowness of your analysis indicates you are either ignorant, or dishonest, or both.
June 24, 2017 5:37 PM
@Strawdusty,
--You obviously do not understand that instantaneous velocity is an abstraction since velocity is distance/time. If time is zero velocity is undefined.
Well this response indicates an ignorance of undergraduate physics as well as the prerequisite calculus courses. I guess Khan Academy can't even help you.
"Your speedometer indicates the instantaneous speed of your vehicle"
--You obviously do not understand that either. In a modern car velocity is calculated by an on board computer that samples distance measurements over short periods of time, performs the distance/time calculation, and displays it.
Yes, that's how instantaneous speed is approximated. The faster the sampling rate, the more accurately it measures instantaneous speed.
The shallowness of your analysis indicates you are either ignorant, or dishonest, or both.
There is another possibility. I've heard of calculus ☺
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
--You obviously do not understand that instantaneous velocity is an abstraction since velocity is distance/time. If time is zero velocity is undefined.
The shallowness of your analysis indicates you are either ignorant, or dishonest, or both.
" There is another possibility. I've heard of calculus ☺"
--Calculus is an abstraction, duh.
Cal: "Textbook."
Yep, textbook failure to comprehend what is written. "It's from a Christian, and I'm not able to comprehend the subject matter, and Stardusty disagrees and he's a skeptic, so obviously Stardusty must be right, since he's a skeptic. Thus the Christian is wrong, and I will tell him so, despite my inability to demonstrate it."
Textbook.
@Strawdusty,
" There is another possibility. I've heard of calculus ☺"
--Calculus is an abstraction, duh.
Average velocity defined by dividing distance by time is math used to describe motion and so is also an abstraction. Calculus is just the correct math to use in physics. Do you think that physics does not deal in abstractions?
Stardusty: ""sustaining force" is not a real variety of force."
This is not relevant in any possible way, and highlights the dangers of relying strictly on scientific terms when describing reality in every single context.
English is a language, and in language, words mean things. To sustain is to provide what is needed for something or someone to exist, continue, etc. (Merriam-Webster definition). Thus, any force that does the above for something else is a sustaining force. There are exactly zero forces that provide what is needed for something or someone to exist, continue, etc, that are not sustaining forces.
I'm baffled by you and Cal continuously throwing scientific concepts at us, like inertia. When I say "a caboose on Earth will not continue moving without a sustaining force", throwing inertia at me makes you look ridiculous. There isn't a single reason for either of you to believe I don't understand inertia, other than perhaps anti-religious prejudice clouding your opinion of me from the start. In conversation with reasonable people, I should not be forced to say "A caboose on Earth will not continue moving without a sustaining force, though I know that the caboose would move because of inertia except it's being acted upon by friction so it slows down, and I also know that a sustaining force is not actually a type of force in scientific literature, so forget I said sustaining force because there is just force." That's ridiculous.
Nothing in my statement about the caboose ignores anything demonstrated by science. The caboose WILL stop without a sustaining force, and that's simply a fact.
Legion: "It's from a Christian, and I'm not able to comprehend the subject matter...
Don't blame your inability to form a reasoned defense of the First Way on my comprehension; our comments here have demonstrated that it is those who fail to recognize the ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument who are failing to comprehend.
Legion: "...and Stardusty disagrees and he's a skeptic, so obviously Stardusty must be right, since he's a skeptic."
The problems with the First Way are found with the First Way, as analyzed using the rules of good argument. They are independent of the argument's promoters ad detractors. The (unflattering) explanations I have offered for apologists handwaving and obstinacy here are a secondary discussion -- but one that I have earned by pointing out the (many) ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument, and the apologists failure to absorb and acknowledge these inconvenient facts.
Legion: "Thus the Christian is wrong, and I will tell him so, despite my inability to demonstrate it."
You abandoned your "defense" halfway through the argument. The inability in this discussion appears to lie solely with you.
@Cal
You abandoned the conversation that you agreed to participate in with Legion. He wanted to go through the FW argument with you line by line so you could understand it. You agreed. You then abandoned the goal of understanding n favor of argument
It's your decision. Do you want Legion to continue with helping you understand the FW?
Telling the person helping you understand, 'you're deluded', is not part of the process of gaining a better understanding. Students ask questions and listen. Class isn't over yet and Cal is arguing with the teacher, calling him names and ridiculing him. I don't blame Legion for stopping what he was attempting to do.
stevek: "You abandoned the conversation that you agreed to participate in with Legion."
False. I have participated this whole time. (Why is everything you write a lie?)
stevek: "He wanted to go through the FW argument with you line by line so you could understand it."
He said he would go through it line by line to defend it from the criticisms offered. He stopped soon after starting. I understand the argument better than Legion (who's understanding of the argument is apparently so shallow that the failings are not yet evident to him), and as evidence I point you to my criticisms. Sic.
stevek: "You agreed. You then abandoned the goal of understanding n favor of argument."
I pointed out problems in his definitions, and asked for more clarity. Sometimes Legion provided more clarity, then he simply stopped. I asked him on multiple times to continue with his definitions (and that the problems I had pointed out earlier could wait), but he still abandoned.
Those are facts.
stevek: "It's your decision. Do you want Legion to continue with helping you understand the FW?"
I have said on multiple occasions that Legion should continue with his definitions and defense of the argument.
I don't know what the hold up is, but I can guess.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: ""sustaining force" is not a real variety of force."
" This is not relevant in any possible way, and highlights the dangers of relying strictly on scientific terms when describing reality in every single context."
--I said one can label it "sustaining" if that is convenient for some calculation.
" To sustain is to provide what is needed for something or someone to exist, continue, etc. (Merriam-Webster definition). Thus, any force that does the above for something else is a sustaining force."
--That is what fooled Aristotle and much of humanity for some 2000 years. So, one can apply that language, but there is some risk that in doing so one will slip back to the errors of Aristotle.
" I'm baffled by you and Cal continuously throwing scientific concepts at us, like inertia. When I say "a caboose on Earth will not continue moving without a sustaining force", throwing inertia at me makes you look ridiculous."
--The point is to make clear that Aristotle was wrong. The fact is that motion sustains itself in the sense that objects naturally keep moving unless acted upon to change motion.
" There isn't a single reason for either of you to believe I don't understand inertia,"
--Anyone who subscribes to A-T thought is highly suspect as an individual who does not fully understand such basic notions as inertia. Perhaps you do, but when you speak of "sustaining force" that at least sounds a great deal like A-T physics, which was ignorant of inertia.
" I should not be forced to say "A caboose on Earth will not continue moving without a sustaining force, though I know that the caboose would move because of inertia except it's being acted upon by friction so it slows down, and I also know that a sustaining force is not actually a type of force in scientific literature, so forget I said sustaining force because there is just force." That's ridiculous."
--Is it? I for one do not object to parsing words down to precise meanings. This becomes all the more important when analyzing an argument that suffers from a paucity of words and was formed in the context of a Aristotelian world view.
" Nothing in my statement about the caboose ignores anything demonstrated by science. The caboose WILL stop without a sustaining force, and that's simply a fact."
--Not in the Aristotelian sense, no, it won't.
You are defending an A-T argument. The first word in A-T is Aristotelian. Then you choose to speak of a "sustaining force". That gives me very good reason to suspect that you do not understand basic physics.
Perhaps you do understand basic physics, and perhaps you reject the physics of A-T, and perhaps you have reassigned the term "sustaining" to mean "counterbalancing the force of friction". But it sounds a great deal like you still have some notion of a divine sustaining force.
Do you suppose there is a divine sustaining force that is evidenced by the need of objects to be pushed along, as it were, in order to sustain their motion? You seem to be interpreting Aquinas as arguing for just that.
June 24, 2017 7:54 PM
SteveK said...
" Telling the person helping you understand, 'you're deluded', is not part of the process of gaining a better understanding."
--That presupposes the individual is not deluded. The human brain is highly segmented. One may be highly rational in some respects and also be deluded in other respects.
" Students ask questions and listen. Class isn't over yet and Cal is arguing with the teacher,"
--This presupposes that the teacher is actually more qualified on the subject than the student. Evidence here shows that frequently is not the case.
June 25, 2017 8:43 AM
Cal: "Don't blame your inability to form a reasoned defense of the First Way on my comprehension; our comments here have demonstrated that it is those who fail to recognize the ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument who are failing to comprehend."
This assertion does not reflect reality, but nonetheless you continue to believe it. Not very skeptical of you.
Cal: "I understand the argument better than Legion"
This is very clearly false, and as evidence, I point to your criticisms.
Also, your descriptions of my motives for stopping with my attempts at the line by line approach have no resemblance to any facts. I stated very clearly why I stopped.
Legion: "To sustain is to provide what is needed for something or someone to exist, continue, etc. (Merriam-Webster definition). Thus, any force that does the above for something else is a sustaining force."
Stardusty: "That is what fooled Aristotle and much of humanity for some 2000 years"
How was Aristotle fooled by the truth? If a force matches the definition of sustaining something, then it is a sustaining force based on word definitions and the relationships between adjectives and nouns in language. Are you denying that words mean things?
Stardusty: "The fact is that motion sustains itself in the sense that objects naturally keep moving unless acted upon to change motion."
This is not a meaningful objection to anything I've said, which is why I said I was baffled that you two keep doing things like this.
Stardusty: "Perhaps you do, but when you speak of "sustaining force" that at least sounds a great deal like A-T physics, which was ignorant of inertia."
So you are denying the concept of an engine overcoming friction and keeping a caboose moving? Because the engine is the sustaining force for the caboose's motion in this circumstance.
Stardusty: "Is it?"
Yes, it is. See my post from June 24 at 8:55, and see if you get my point from that parody conversation.
Stardusty: "Not in the Aristotelian sense, no, it won't."
Please identify the sense in which a caboose decoupled from an engine will continue its movement without a sustaining force. A caboose floating around in space is a strawman, so let's keep it to the 100 percent of cabooses that are on Earth.
Stardusty: "That gives me very good reason to suspect that you do not understand basic physics."
No, it doesn't. All these posts from you and Cal about how I don't understand this or that about science, and every one of them has been proven false. I wonder why you keep trying?
Stardusty: "perhaps you have reassigned the term "sustaining" to mean "counterbalancing the force of friction""
If there was nothing to counterbalance against, it would not be sustaining. There was nothing "reassigned".
Stardusty: "Do you suppose there is a divine sustaining force that is evidenced by the need of objects to be pushed along, as it were, in order to sustain their motion?"
At some level, perhaps. If not, then the First Way would just be a useless little curiosity from yonder years. I'm waiting for that actual refutation.
Legion of Logic said...
" How was Aristotle fooled by the truth?"
--That is actually a very important and fascinating question. Answering that question is key to developing and practicing a sound scientific method.
Is it not true that the sun rises in the East, arcs across the sky, and then sets in the West? Is it not true that we are plainly, evidently, and obviously stationary as the sun moves?
Indeed, how are humans fooled by truth, and what can we do to not be fooled any longer?
Stardusty: "Not in the Aristotelian sense, no, it won't."
" Please identify the sense in which a caboose decoupled from an engine will continue its movement without a sustaining force."
--Palpably it does continue without a sustaining force, this is known as "coasting".
" A caboose floating around in space is a strawman,"
--Every caboose is in space. We are not out of space, we simply have a great deal of nearby company with us in space.
We do not have one sort of physics on the surface of our planet, and another sort of physics out in interplanetary space. There is only one sort of physics that is everywhere.
Stardusty: "perhaps you have reassigned the term "sustaining" to mean "counterbalancing the force of friction""
" If there was nothing to counterbalance against, it would not be sustaining. There was nothing "reassigned"."
--That is not what Aristotle supposed. He was so convinced that the natural state of an object is rest that he imagined a continual sustaining force applied to an object such as a stone thrown through the air.
Stardusty: "Do you suppose there is a divine sustaining force that is evidenced by the need of objects to be pushed along, as it were, in order to sustain their motion?"
" At some level, perhaps."
--My concerns thus justified.
" If not, then the First Way would just be a useless little curiosity from yonder years."
--So, if motion can continue on its own without a sustaining force at any level then the First Way is useless.
The First Way is useless by your own words, in that case.
" I'm waiting for that actual refutation."
--Inertia.
First law: In an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.[2][3]
Second law: In an inertial reference frame, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma. (It is assumed here that the mass m is constant - see below.)
Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Now, I actually object to the use of the word "law". These are principles, models, descriptions.
You are aware, I am sure, that these principles have been verified extensively and are used daily in many sorts of engineering of things that demonstrably work.
You may also be aware that Newton too was wrong in certain details, as Einstein demonstrated.
Our interplanetary probes decisively demonstrate, using our own mechanical constructions launched across billions of miles, that motion is fundamentally self sustaining.
Thus the First Way is indeed just "a useless little curiosity from yonder years".
June 25, 2017 11:29 AM
Teacher Legion: "Today class I'm going to help you understand the FW argument. It's a metaphysical argument about the nature of being."
Student Cal: "It's a physics argument you idiot"
Teacher Legion: "Would you like to understand this metaphysical argument?"
Student Cal: "It's a physics argument. Typical apologist nonsense. Science!"
Teacher Legion: "It's a metaphysical argument from motion that starts with beings that have potential and attempts to demonstrate that some other kind of being is necessary. It's one argument that is part a broader metaphysic that Aquinas held"
Student Cal: "It's a physics argument you idiot. If you knew how things move around you wouldn't say stupid things. Have you ever heard of Newton? Have you ever seen a satellite orbiting earth? You're a deluded fool."
Teacher Legion: "I think I'll stop here until you quite arguing"
Student Cal: "So you're giving up?"
Student SteveK: "Hey Cal, physics cannot possibly demonstrate that some other kind of being is - or is not - necessary. That should be your first and only necessary clue that the FW is not a physics argument."
Student Cal: "You're also delusional. Science just hasn't figured out how to do that. All hail Scientism!"
Student SteveK: "So we agree - it's not a physics argument"
Teacher Legion: " Drinking alcohol in class is not allowed, Cal"
Cal keeps pointing out that I decided not to continue with the line by line approach, and criticizes me for it as though it was due to some inability on my part. He claims that very powerful and pertinent objections have been raised that have not been addressed.
Since I first offered the line by line approach, here is what I have dealt with. This is the general quality of objection:
1. Denial that things have potential states (they do)
2. Stuff does stuff.
3. Physicists don't use the First Way or A-T terminology (irrelevant)
4. Skeptics understand the argument better than those who formulated the argument (skeptics don't even understand the terminology)
5. List of asserted, and undemonstrated, fallacies
6. Strawman about a thing being made into a state by something already in that state (not a premise)
7. Attempt to use "actually" like a noun, then claiming I was the one doing that (I wasn't)
8. Not knowing the definition of "emphasize"
9. Baseless denial that the burning wood example was to illustrate act and potency, rather than what it takes to make something hot
10. Making every possible argument into a physics argument (they aren't)
11. "Soft causes soft."
12. Denial that objections have been addressed (they were)
13. Claim that Aristotle's and Aquinas' ignorance of subatomic particles defeats the First Way (it doesn't)
14. Attempts to avoid considering what Aquinas and Aristotle believed when evaluating the meaning of the argument they constructed
15. Insults for consulting the broader writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and A-T scholars for context of the subject matter in the First Way
16. Claiming that water freezing into ice is not a potential state of water being actualized (it is)
17. Claims that the concept of potential states involves anthropomorphization (it does not, at least by any definition of the word I have seen)
18. Claims that all instances of observation are scientific in nature (they are not)
19. "What is really real is that everything is in a continuous/continual mutual multibody causal relationship with everything else. In classical relativity causal effects propagate locally no faster than the speed of light described as a light cone. Some indications point to non-local (super luminal) propagation of causal effects, and contrary to ordinary logic certain experiments actually support the notion of an effect without a cause, so called intrinsic randomness."
20. Claims that the First Way deals with the origin of the universe (it does not)
21. Baseless claims that I believe truth is synonymous with things that are important to me
22. Baseless claims that I think science is only done in laboratories
23. Baseless claims that if the First Way is not a science argument, then it is not about knowledge
24. Baseless accusations of being a narcissist
25. Denial that a definition I used was in the skeptic's own words, and accusations that I tried to say he had literally come up with it on his own
26. Repeated demands for my definition of truth (tangent)
27. Immature insults as I attempted to refine my definitions to be more clear and precise
28. Invalid comparisons of the First Way with phlogiston theory
29. Accusing me of being contradictory with definitions when I clearly said the "contradiction" was due to retracting the previous definition based on a faulty belief that the definition had been understood by the skeptic
30. Inability to give a simple yes or no answer when asked if water freezes
31. Accusing me of claiming that ice can exist without water (I did not)
32. Accusing me of trying to avoid analyzing the First Way with modern scientific findings (I said the exact opposite repeatedly)
33. Conflating of something being scientific with something being testable by science
34. Constant appeals to the ground rules of good argumentation, with a decided lack of examples of how the First Way fails to follow these rules
35. Failure to understand the difference between explaining how something works and forming a logical conclusion based upon the fact that something works
36. Asserting that science disproves the early premises of the First Way, and failing to demonstrate the truth of this assertion upon request
37. Denial that a thrown brick is what breaks the window it flies through
38. Abandoning the scientific concept of solid objects by pointing out they are mostly empty space, even though any reasonable person and science itself are not being literal by saying "solid"
39. Claiming that those who deny the reality of bricks, glass, and ice are more enlightened than those who acknowledge these things
40. Claims that any statement that does not completely enumerate every single aspect of every single quark involved is not accurate
41. Denials that a rock being pushed along the ground will stop due to outside forces acting upon it, because science
42. Baseless claim that my life would be better if I wasn't a Christian (demonstrably false)
43. Denying that a thing that causes something else to move is the cause of the other thing's motion
44. Asserting inertia as defeating the First Way (it does not)
45. Attempts to tie the soundness of the First Way with the success of A-T physics, even though the First Way does not depend upon A-T physics
46. Claiming that "reality" and "performing physics" are synonymous (they are not)
47. Failure to understand the difference between someone performing physics, and something being testable by physics
48. "Describe a change in which there is no physical movement."
49. Being incapable of understanding different categories of motion under A-T philosophy, yet claiming I'm spouting gibberish (I'm not)
50. Being incapable of reading what I write when I explain why I brought up A-T categories of motion, and then inaccurately claiming the First Way depends upon there being motion that isn't change in physical location, and then lying and claiming I had yet to address the repeated request for an example of change not involving any physical motion
51. Falsely claiming that potential and actual are synonymous with unreal and real
52. Claiming that I "suspect" there is no such thing as a change that involves no physical motion, even though I had never asserted otherwise
53. Denial that things have properties, inherent traits and capacities for change, even though they do (not even using A-T terminology and still got denied)
54. Failure to explain the First Way upon repeated request, even though the skeptics claimed to understand it better than even Aristotle and Aquinas
55. Baseless accusation that I don't understand biology since I pointed out that a leaf changing color would have been a different sort of motion than physical movement under A-T philosophy
56. Baseless accusation that I don't understand what change is since I accurately pointed out that the First Way is not merely a physics argument, due to all A-T categories of change being included
57. Insults at the lengths of my posts while also demanding I explain myself
58. Baseless accusation that I claimed change without physical movement is a premise of the First Way (I did not)
59. Baseless accusation that I claimed a leaf changing color does not involve physical motion (I did not)
60. Extremely inaccurate assertion that since potential states “don't exist”, then the First Way must depend upon change that doesn't involve physical movement
61. Baseless accusation that I have not been consistent in my position (I have)
62. Failure to explain how Newton defeats the First Way upon request
63. Baseless accusation that I don't realize the First Way is about reality
64. Ignoring the writings and beliefs of the argument's authors in order to attack a strawman, and calling me arrogant for using the authors' beliefs to interpret the authors' argument, and even claiming that knowing their intent makes me less capable of knowing their intent
65. Pretending that a huge series of posts I had very recently written addressing a point had actually never been written
66. Being completely incapable of scrolling up a few posts and locating sentences that were bolded, even when the date is provided
67. Baseless accusation that I have not answered questions (I have)
68. Conflating the A-T term motion with the modern usage of the word motion, and then accusing me of being unclear in my terminology even though I had explained multiple times that the two were not the same
69. Lying about my motivation for beginning the line by line approach, even though I spelled it out clearly
70. Stating that a post that spells out my motivation for beginning the line by line approach, does not in fact spell out my motivation for beginning the line by line approach, even though it clearly did
71. Baseless accusation that I believe my understanding of the meaning of the First Way is the correct one simply because it's mine
72. Strawman that the First Way deals with demonstrating the initial motion in the past (it does not)
73. Calling it absurd to say that Aquinas would not logically argue for something he has stated could not be logically argued
74. Continuous conflating of accidentally and essentially ordered series, despite the difference being explained
75. Asserting that the existence of accidentally ordered series refutes the concept of essentially ordered series and thus defeats the First Way (it does not)
76. Asserting that past motion defeats the concept of an essentially ordered series (it does not)
77. Claiming that a caboose decoupled from an engine will sustain its motion, even though it will not, and then turning around that the inability to sustain its motion is due to friction overcoming inertia, which is somehow different than saying the caboose won't sustain its motion
78. Denying that the question of whether water freezes into ice was quibbled over (it was)
79. Baseless accusation that rewording a question in order to get a response to that question is in fact deceitful
80. Baseless accusation that claiming a caboose must have a sustaining force to continue its movement – directly synonymous with overcoming the slowing effect of friction – is being willfully ignorant
81. Claiming that a train on Earth is actually a train in space, even though any reasonable person knows exactly what difference is being implied
82. Erroneous claim that the difference between accidentally and essentially ordered series, according to me, is that one has inertia and the other does not
83. Baseless accusation that I don't understand inertia
84. Comparing the truth of a caboose requiring a sustaining force acting upon it to overcome friction and continue moving, with the “truth” of the sun sliding across the sky
85. Claiming that if the caboose does not stop instantly upon being decoupled from the engine, then it defeats the concept of an essentially ordered series, even though it does not
That's the vast bulk of what I've dealt with (I didn't even get into what the others dealt with). There were admittedly a few relevant points here and there, but this is the overwhelming majority, and most of them appeared more than once.
And yet with all of that, Cal is still saying that I have not addressed his very powerful and pertinent objections, which I just demonstrated were nothing but a cesspit of irrelevant nonsense. Cal is still saying I should act like the above list of objections is not sheer, unadulterated garbage that I've had to slog through trying to actually do the line by line approach. Cal is saying that I abandoned the exercise due to inability or whatever, rather than looking at the bloated mass of gibberish that had been thrown at me since March and realizing the objective of the exercise could not possibly be met.
If you read through that list and don't cringe or laugh, then you are not intellectually capable of having this discussion.
But what's wrong with number 19?
Legion: "Cal is saying that I abandoned the exercise due to inability or whatever, rather than looking at the bloated mass of gibberish that had been thrown at me since March and realizing the objective of the exercise could not possibly be met."
Oh, boo hoo. Get over yourself.
It's an online discussion, that's supposed to be about ideas -- and to a secondary degree, the ways in which we come to believe things, and possibly change our minds.
I asked you repeatedly to not get hung up on criticisms of your definitions and to move on, but you have been unwilling or unable.
Legion: "If you read through that list and don't cringe or laugh, then you are not intellectually capable of having this discussion."
I cringed (for you) on reading through that list. If you think my response somehow prevents you from doing what you said you would do, then you are (perforce) not capable of having the discussion you invited.
@Strawdusty,
But what's wrong with number 19?
What about #19 do you think is a problem for the First Way and why?
Stardusty,
19 was not a critique of the validity of your words, but rather a tendency to throw long strings of scientific jargon at some aspect of the First Way or other which ultimately proves irrelevant to the point being made. More details is not equivalent to more correct in every case.
Cal,
I knew your reaction would be further lashing out at me, rather than utilizing self-reflection to realize how disgraceful your conduct has been during this exercise. After all, it's been proven that you are not fazed even by quotes directly proving you wrong. The primary purpose of me listing the "objections" in this fashion was morbid curiosity for myself, and entertainment for bmiller and SteveK, because I know you are incapable of recognizing your multiple failures.
As I proved through quotation of myself, I couldn't care less if you or Stardusty agree with the First Way since it is hardly some sort of ideological or emotional pillar I rest upon. As bmiller and SteveK do agree with it, I can't very well ask them to do their best to refute it, so it fell to the skeptics. At one time, you exhibited understanding of some of the terminology, so I took that to mean you were capable of learning the purpose of the argument and then refuting the actual argument. That's why I offered the line by line approach to you.
Along the way, I encountered the 85 listed "objections", usually multiple times apiece, and not one of them even scratches the surface of the argument. They indicate absolute ignorance as to what the premises were saying. They were assertions with no backing. They were often insults as to my motives and capabilities (which I admittedly returned in kind). Basically, you proved yourself incapable of undertaking the process of learning what the argument was saying and then refuting it, so continuing the exercise with you is a colossal waste of time. I'm not impressed by your strawmen, accusations, insults, or baseless assertions, so take those things away and you were awfully silent.
You defeated yourself, not me, so I simply decided to enumerate the reasons I abandoned the exercise in the face of yet further baseless accusations questioning my motives for stopping.
Congrats, you failed.
Legion of Logic said...
" 19 was not a critique of the validity of your words, but rather a tendency to throw long strings of scientific jargon at some aspect of the First Way"
--Well, I wasn't trying to muddy the waters by throwing out jargon, although I suppose it might seem that way to the reader. I think those points are important to the broader question of our understanding of causality, and thus the way to understand the origins of motion, change, and causation.
" or other which ultimately proves irrelevant to the point being made."
--It's relevant to one of my points, which is that the First Way is irrelevant in the search for the origin of causation.
I provided a very brief statement of modern notions of causation. A-T language doesn't even come up. A-T language is simply irrelevant, just a quaint historical artifact of arguments and concepts discarded as useless a century ago.
" More details is not equivalent to more correct in every case."
--Number 19 might sound like a lot of details and jargon but it really just gives a very brief introduction to what modern science has moved on to after discarding A-T language and concepts.
June 26, 2017 6:33 AM
change/motion = (potential -> actual)
If you can understand this then you can understand the argument. No language of physics is required.
1) Start with an essentially ordered causal series
2) Stack as few or as many (potential -> actual) terms together as you want
3) At every step one more (actual) thing is always needed to explain the causal series
4) Thus demonstrating that a (potential -> actual) causal series cannot explain itself
5) Thus demonstrating that (actual) is necessary
The skeptics have argued that the FW argument is invalid because the existence of a unique (potential -> actual) being that does not require an (actual) to explain itself is a possible solution.
This is an nonsensical idea under the metaphysics of Aquinas. More would have to be said to explain why, but the short answer is the FW argument isn't guilty of engaging in a logically fallacy when it rules out the existence of a unique being like that.
Legion: "I knew your reaction would be further lashing out at me, rather than utilizing self-reflection to realize how disgraceful your conduct has been during this exercise.”
mkay.
Legion: After all, it's been proven that you are not fazed even by quotes directly proving you wrong.”
You live in a fantasy world.
Legion: “The primary purpose of me listing the "objections" in this fashion was morbid curiosity for myself, and entertainment for bmiller and SteveK, because I know you are incapable of recognizing your multiple failures.”
Or you are deluded and aren’t thinking clearly.
Legion: “As I proved through quotation of myself, I couldn't care less if you or Stardusty agree with the First Way since it is hardly some sort of ideological or emotional pillar I rest upon.”
“As I proved through quotation of myself…” <— that is a good summary of your level of thinking throughout here.
Legion: “As bmiller and SteveK do agree with it, I can't very well ask them to do their best to refute it, so it fell to the skeptics.”
Sure. And we pointed out, over and over, the numerous and obvious ways that the First Way fails to abide by the rules of argument.
To attempt to refute our criticisms, you said you would go through the argument, line by line, carefully define terms, and in so doing show us how the violations of the rules of argument were somehow not.
Then you stopped.
Legion: At one time, you exhibited understanding of some of the terminology, so I took that to mean you were capable of learning the purpose of the argument and then refuting the actual argument.”
I accepted the definitions you offered. I pointed out the confusion in other definitions you used, asking for clarification. I asked you to proceed with your line by line approach. Still, you stopped.
It’s laughable that you would stop because I wouldn’t “learn the purpose of the argument” — what is at issue is the argument itself, which we have shown to fail to abide by the rules of good argument. An argument that fails to abide by the rules of good argument CANNOT fulfill it’s purpose — so, your silly claim to stop because I wouldn’t agree beforehand that the First Way fulfilled it’s purpose is akin to saying you won because I wouldn’t agree beforehand that you won.
You are a joke.
Legion: “Along the way, I encountered the 85 listed "objections", usually multiple times apiece, and not one of them even scratches the surface of the argument.”
Your list is a kind of weird little tabulation of how your mind seems to work. I winced for you when reading it.
Legion: “They indicate absolute ignorance as to what the premises were saying. They were assertions with no backing. They were often insults as to my motives and capabilities (which I admittedly returned in kind).”
And yet you couldn’t ever find the time to define your terms and actually show us how the First Way avoids the mistakes of bad argument that we pointed out. Weird, I know.
Legion: “Basically, you proved yourself incapable of undertaking the process of learning what the argument was saying and then refuting it, so continuing the exercise with you is a colossal waste of time. I'm not impressed by your strawmen, accusations, insults, or baseless assertions, so take those things away and you were awfully silent.”
Nope. I have pointed out over and over the ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
I have patiently responded to your false accusations over and over and over.
Throughout, you have failed to do what you had vowed you would do.
Legion: “You defeated yourself, not me, so I simply decided to enumerate the reasons I abandoned the exercise in the face of yet further baseless accusations questioning my motives for stopping.”
You gave up. It’s easy to surmise why.
stevek: "If you can understand this then you can understand the argument. No language of physics is required.
1) Start with an essentially ordered causal series
2) Stack as few or as many (potential -> actual) terms together as you want
3) At every step one more (actual) thing is always needed to explain the causal series
4) Thus demonstrating that a (potential -> actual) causal series cannot explain itself
5) Thus demonstrating that (actual) is necessary"
Congratulations. You have just reduced the First Way to the tautology that a sequence where each link is preceded by another is a sequence where each link is preceded by another.
But the First Way is supposed to argue that god is the first mover.
And apologist pretend that it's skeptics who don't understand the First Way.
Weirder and weirder.
Cal: "You live in a fantasy world."
I live in a world where quotes have proven you wrong 100 percent of the time. This world is called the real world.
Cal: "Or you are deluded and aren’t thinking clearly."
While within the realm of possibility, there is a decided lack of evidence supporting it.
Cal: "that is a good summary of your level of thinking throughout here."
Indeed. By quoting myself, I proved you wrong every time you made an accusation about what I had said. Every time.
Cal: "Sure. And we pointed out, over and over, the numerous and obvious ways that the First Way fails to abide by the rules of argument."
I enumerated what you provided. It does not match what you claim you did. You failed, horribly.
Cal: "Then you stopped."
For reasons I clearly spelled out - but then, you aren't fazed by things that prove you wrong, are you?
Cal: "Your list is a kind of weird little tabulation of how your mind seems to work. I winced for you when reading it."
My list of your abject failures shows how my mind works? That's an interesting possibility, that you are an alternate personality of mine of which I'm unaware. Plot twist!
Cal: "And yet you couldn’t ever find the time to define your terms and actually show us how the First Way avoids the mistakes of bad argument that we pointed out. Weird, I know."
It is weird, because I did define them. I can go right to the post where I did so. The problem is that I was dealing with someone who is incapable of holding up his end of the agreement. I did not take that into account. Also, you asserted it was a bad argument without demonstrating it was a bad argument, which happens to be listed under #34.
Cal: "I accepted the definitions you offered. I pointed out the confusion in other definitions you used, asking for clarification. I asked you to proceed with your line by line approach. Still, you stopped."
Indeed, you did do those things. You also did the things I listed. Unfortunately, the things I listed exceeded the things you listed by a very wide margin. And yet, if I only addressed the things you listed, and ignored the things you said which I listed, then you would have claimed my failure to address those things was because I couldn't defend the First Way from your criticisms.
Cal: " what is at issue is the argument itself, which we have shown to fail to abide by the rules of good argument"
#34.
Cal: "You are a joke."
Perhaps, but certainly not because of anything either of us did in this discussion.
Cal: "Nope. I have pointed out over and over the ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument."
No, you have asserted it over and over and have never demonstrated it. #34.
Cal: "I have patiently responded to your false accusations over and over and over."
The entirety of false accusations was yours. I can go back into the posts and demonstrate that, as well, if you'd like. Though of course you aren't fazed by posts that decisively prove you wrong, are you?
Cal: "You gave up. It’s easy to surmise why."
One need not surmise, just read what I wrote and you'll know exactly why I abandoned the exercise. Of course, you ignore what I write anyway, so why bother?
You failed.
>> "You have just reduced the First Way to the tautology that a sequence where each link is preceded by another is a sequence where each link is preceded by another."
Congrats on failing to read and comprehend English at a 6th grade level. That takes effort, but you did it.
Me: "To attempt to refute our criticisms, you said you would go through the argument, line by line, carefully define terms, and in so doing show us how the violations of the rules of argument were somehow not. /Then you stopped."
Legion: "For reasons I clearly spelled out - but then, you aren't fazed by things that prove you wrong, are you?"
Two things:
1. You said you would go through the whole argument line by line, and then you stopped. These are facts. These are facts that I stated.
2. My pointing out that said you would go through the whole argument line by line, and then you stopped, is NOT proven wrong by your subsequently coming up with excuses for not doing what you said you would do. You said you would do something. You didn't. These are facts.
You might have an excuse, etc. But don’t deny what is obviously and demonstrably true. It just makes you seem (more) delusional.
The rest of your comments are a lot of boo hoo, oh poor me drivel, combined with a lot of false recounting of your imagined rejoinders or whatnot. Whatever.
But facts remain stubborn things (see, above). And you appear consistently in opposition to them.
Like this fact:
You said you would rebut the criticisms of the numerous ways in which the First Way does not abide by the rules of good argument, and then you gave up.
Top of my head, failings with the First Way have included:
- Unsound premise(s?)
- Equivocation
- Contradiction
- Begging the question
- Ad hoc
I have yet to see a real rebuttal to these criticisms. Instead, I see a seemingly endless repetition of what began this comment -- a simple, straightforward statement of a fact by the skeptics here, followed by an easily falsifiable claim by the apologists and an equally false claim of having achieved what the apologists have not.
Sad.
Prediction: The apologists will be so upset over the facts making them appear ridiculous, again, that they will chatter amongst one another and agree on some falsehood or set of falsehoods, thus avoiding the feeling of being ridiculous.
But apologists have to pretend that the fallacy of consensus is what makes an argument a good one.
And this pretending is what exposes them as the mob they are; mob agreement (ad populum) doesn't make an argument a good one. The (objective) rules of good argument are what determines that.
And that is why they fail to win at intellectual argument.
@Legion,
#34.
This is great. You've provided a handy index of atheist inanities that we all can refer to when they show up rather than all that typing. Most of the times they are combinations of the 85.
But I think you missed a few. I've been building my own list. Maybe I can add them to the end.
@Strawdusty,
" More details is not equivalent to more correct in every case."
--Number 19 might sound like a lot of details and jargon but it really just gives a very brief introduction to what modern science has moved on to after discarding A-T language and concepts.
#3
Also known as the genetic fallacy.
This is so much easier thanks to Legion.
66. Being completely incapable of scrolling up a few posts and locating sentences that were bolded, even when the date is provided
This is one of the certain ways of identifying Lizard People!!!
Of course, Just Joking ��
Cal: "You said you would rebut the criticisms of the numerous ways in which the First Way does not abide by the rules of good argument, and then you gave up"
He did rebut the criticisms. If you cannot see that by now then there's probably nothing anyone here can do to help you. What Legion gave up was the act of repeating himself.
@Legion,
I think a big one you missed was PROJECTION.
The atheists only know how their own minds work, so they can't imagine that others honestly seek the truth.
Cal: "Prediction: The apologists will be so upset over the facts making them appear ridiculous, again, that they will chatter amongst one another and agree on some falsehood or set of falsehoods, thus avoiding the feeling of being ridiculous.
But apologists have to pretend that the fallacy of consensus is what makes an argument a good one.
And this pretending is what exposes them as the mob they are; mob agreement (ad populum) doesn't make an argument a good one. The (objective) rules of good argument are what determines that.
And that is why they fail to win at intellectual argument."
This is a level of delusion I have rarely encountered online. You do realize that simply because you assert something doesn't make reality warp itself to your words, correct? The post history which humiliates you every time I refer to it does not change to make you look better - you're refuted at every turn.
Sad.
Cal: "But don’t deny what is obviously and demonstrably true."
Flip side, don't accuse me of what is obviously and demonstrably false. Not once did I deny that I stopped.
Cal: "Top of my head, failings with the First Way have included:
- Unsound premise(s?)
- Equivocation
- Contradiction
- Begging the question
- Ad hoc"
And to this, I point to #5 - List of asserted and undemonstrated fallacies. This one could easily be scratched off the list, however, by completing the following by filling in the blanks. I'm assuming you'll simply wait for Stardusty to do so, but you might surprise me by attempting it yourself.
The unsound premise(s) in the First Way is (blank) because (blank) .
(Blank) in the First Way is equivocation because (blank).
(Blank) and (blank) in the First Way are contradictions because (blank).
(Blank) is begging the question in the First Way because (blank).
(Blank) in the First Way is ad hoc because (blank).
Legion:”The unsound premise(s) in the First Way is (blank) because (blank) .
Per the most recent spate of comments, objects do not need a “sustaining force” to continue moving. This fact is demonstrated broadly. Your misunderstanding of the forces involving motion and friction is what apparently prevents you from understanding this.
The above is so obvious I can’t explain your inability to grasp it other than you are so stupid as to be considered deluded.
Legion: “(Blank) in the First Way is equivocation because (blank).”
To be in act is still muddled, because it conflates existence as matter, and also existence as matter in motion. Potential things are said to exist, but they do not exist.
Again, this has been explicated to you many times. That you are apparently so stupid and/or deluded to grasp it is not the fault of the skeptics here.
(Blank) and (blank) in the First Way are contradictions because (blank).
The first way says that a thing cannot both exist and potentially exist (ugh) in the same way, but that is the conclusion of the first mover (which exists, and also moves things).
This has been explicated to you many times. That you are apparently so stupid and/or deluded to grasp it is not the fault of the skeptics here.
(Blank) is begging the question in the First Way because (blank).
The First Way is supposed to argue that a First Mover is necessary because an infinite regress is impossible; the First Way arbitrarily declares that an infinite regress is impossible without arguing for why that should be the case (outside of stipulating that an infinite regress is impossible).
This has been explicated to you many times. That you are apparently so stupid and/or deluded to grasp it is not the fault of the skeptics here.
(Blank) in the First Way is ad hoc because (blank).
The First Way declares that the First Mover everyone knows to be god without demonstrating this.
This has been explicated to you many times. That you are apparently so stupid and/or deluded to grasp it is not the fault of the skeptics here.
Me: "Cal: "Prediction: The apologists will be so upset over the facts making them appear ridiculous, again, that they will chatter amongst one another and agree on some falsehood or set of falsehoods, thus avoiding the feeling of being ridiculous. / But apologists have to pretend that the fallacy of consensus is what makes an argument a good one. / And this pretending is what exposes them as the mob they are; mob agreement (ad populum) doesn't make an argument a good one. The (objective) rules of good argument are what determines that. / And that is why they fail to win at intellectual argument."
In consider the above to be one of the most awesomely demonstrated internet psychological predictions of all time.
The fact that the prediction was so quickly verified discourages me from having much hope for humanity's future, however.
Cal Metzger said...
" The fact that the prediction was so quickly verified discourages me from having much hope for humanity's future, however."
This then, my lords and gentlemen, is the message which we send forth today to all states and nations, bound or free, to all the men in all the lands who care for freedom's cause. To our Allies and well-wishers in Europe, to our American friends and helpers drawing ever closer in their might across the ocean, this is the message-lift up your hearts, all will come right. Out of depths of sorrow and sacrifice will be born again the glory of mankind.
...stiff upper lip, old boy, we've prevailed over far worse.
June 27, 2017 6:06 AM
All of Cal's objections have been discussed at length. If he listened and if he understood that the FW requires background knowledge of Aquinas' metaphysical principles (also discussed at length) then he wouldn't say stupid things like he has. Cal might better understand some of these metaphysical principles if he were to let Legion continue to explain the FW argument - but Cal refuses to quit being a crank.
Cal: "Per the most recent spate of comments, objects do not need a “sustaining force” to continue moving. This fact is demonstrated broadly. Your misunderstanding of the forces involving motion and friction is what apparently prevents you from understanding this."
#44: "Asserting inertia as defeating the First Way (it does not)"
#80: "Baseless accusation that claiming a caboose must have a sustaining force to continue its movement – directly synonymous with overcoming the slowing effect of friction – is being willfully ignorant"
#83: "Baseless accusation that I don't understand inertia"
Do you realize how much you are embarrassing yourself?
Cal: "To be in act is still muddled"
What is so difficult to understand about "in a realized state"?
Cal: "because it conflates existence as matter, and also existence as matter in motion."
What?
Cal: "Potential things are said to exist, but they do not exist."
#1: "Denial that things have potential states (they do)"
#53: "Denial that things have properties, inherent traits and capacities for change, even though they do (not even using A-T terminology and still got denied)"
Do you realize how much you are embarrassing yourself?
Cal: "The first way says that a thing cannot both exist and potentially exist (ugh) in the same way, but that is the conclusion of the first mover (which exists, and also moves things)."
"Potentially exists" is not synonymous with "moves things". Even I had no idea how pathetic your understanding of the argument was, and I was getting subjected to your inanities on a near daily basis.
Cal: "The First Way is supposed to argue that a First Mover is necessary because an infinite regress is impossible; the First Way arbitrarily declares that an infinite regress is impossible without arguing for why that should be the case"
Actually, he outlines right there in the argument why that should be the case. Wow.
Cal: "The First Way declares that the First Mover everyone knows to be god without demonstrating this."
#12: "Denial that objections have been addressed (they were)"
#64: "Ignoring the writings and beliefs of the argument's authors in order to attack a strawman, and calling me arrogant for using the authors' beliefs to interpret the authors' argument, and even claiming that knowing their intent makes me less capable of knowing their intent"
This "objection" has been adequately addressed multiple times by all of us here, particularly bmiller. That you're too too stupid or deluded to realize it is not the fault of the Christians.
You're an embarrassment to all skeptics. But you'll keep trying, won't you?
Cal: "In consider the above to be one of the most awesomely demonstrated internet psychological predictions of all time."
LOL!
Cal: "The apologists will be so upset (didn't happen) over the facts making them appear ridiculous(didn't happen), again (never happened), that they will chatter amongst one another (didn't happen) and agree on some falsehood or set of falsehoods (didn't happen), thus avoiding the feeling of being ridiculous (nothing to feel ridiculous about). / But apologists have to pretend that the fallacy of consensus is what makes an argument a good one (didn't happen). / And this pretending (didn't happen) is what exposes them as the mob they are (didn't happen); mob agreement (ad populum) doesn't make an argument a good one (we haven't done this). The (objective) rules of good argument are what determines that (#34). / And that is why they fail to win at intellectual argument (you were annihilated)."
One of the most awesomely demonstrated psychological predictions? You literally got every single thought wrong, except for what makes a good argument, and you've failed at demonstrating we violated that. Easily the worst prediction I have ever encountered online, and that is saying a lot.
Apparently Cal thinks an explanation isn't valid unless he agrees it is. We've explained why these criticisms fail so that SHOULD settle the issue - but nope
Cal is a typical arrogant skeptic who thinks he is the standard by which arguments pass or fail, but I'm still laughing over his amazing prediction. It had twelve separate thoughts, and was wrong on every single one of them, yet he thinks it is "one of the most awesomely demonstrated internet psychological predictions of all time". I seriously can't stop laughing every time I think of it.
Legion: "Cal is a typical arrogant skeptic who thinks he is the standard by which arguments pass or fail, but I'm still laughing over his amazing prediction. It had twelve separate thoughts, and was wrong on every single one of them, yet he thinks it is "one of the most awesomely demonstrated internet psychological predictions of all time". I seriously can't stop laughing every time I think of it."
You seem unaware that you and the other apologists continue to fulfill my prediction all the way through to this comment as well.
The effectiveness of a psychological prediction, even when presented to the subjects before the phenomena is to be observed, makes me more less skeptical of traditional psychological techniques than I had been. Really makes me wonder what the next step should be.
Legion goes through Cal's prediction to tell him it failed. Cal, oblivious to this fact, awkwardly pats himself on the back.
#LOL
Cal: "The effectiveness of a psychological prediction"
I'll complete your sentence for you. The effectiveness of a psychological dependent can be evaluated on how well it actually predicts. As I demonstrated, it was a 100 percent failure.
But you seem to think differently. So, I'm sure you'll be happy to:
demonstrate that I or any of us was upset;
demonstrate that any facts have made us appear ridiculous;
demonstrate that any past facts have made us appear ridiculous;
demonstrate that we chattered amongst ourselves;
demonstrate that we agreed upon a falsehood;
demonstrate that we were trying to avoid feeling ridiculous;
demonstrate we are adopting the fallacy of concensus;
demonstrate that we are pretending;
demonstrate that we are acting as a mob, any more than you and Stardusty (3v2, not that different);
demonstrate that we are adopting ad populum tactics;
explain the rules of good argument, and explain how we have failed to abide by them;
If you can do those things, you might stand a chance at demonstrating that we have failed to win the argument. It will also demonstrate the amazing accuracy of your prediction.
I have a prediction that I suspect will yield much more accurate results - you will fail to demonstrate that your prediction had even the slightest anchor in reality.
Edit: I have no idea where the word "dependent" came from in my second sentence. Should have been "prediction".
Legion: “Cal is a typical arrogant skeptic who thinks he is the standard by which arguments pass or fail, but I'm still laughing over his amazing prediction.”
Um, I have pointed out over and over that there are rules to argument (stevek has agreed with me), and that the First Way violates many of those rules. You can disagree with me that there are rules to argument, but that would make you seem silly (and comport with my assessment that you are a kind of narcissist, which I recall you finding objectionable), so I imagine you'll end up realizing that you should agree that there are indeed rules to argument.
I have distinguished my comments from apologists here by referring to this objective standard -- the rules of argument. Note how apologists just say things equivalent to, “I disagree therefore you’re wrong.” The difference is that I refer to an objective standard (the rules of argument), and apologists instead regularly refer only to their own (subjective) determinations. I imagine that this is why they congregate on sites like this, because by assuring one another they can pretend that their agreement that skeptics are somehow wrong should be the standard for evaluating arguments. But group consensus is not the standard for evaluating arguments. Group consensus alone (ad populum) is a known fallacy.
Legion: “It had twelve separate thoughts, and was wrong on every single one of them, yet he thinks it is "one of the most awesomely demonstrated internet psychological predictions of all time". I seriously can't stop laughing every time I think of it.”
Nope. You just list a bunch of instances of you’re saying “Nuh uh,” and somehow think your self-reference serves as a refutation. But all you’ve indicated is that you disagree. And your disagreement exposes you to the criticism that you are bad at evaluating reality. Your disagreement is another indication of the extent to which you are deluded.
Cal: "I imagine you'll end up realizing that you should agree that there are indeed rules to argument"
And this dovetails nicely with my statement that you believe you are the standard by which all arguments are judged. After all, not once have I disagreed about rules of argument, but what I have done is refuted your asserted violations of those rules. So apparently, disagreeing with you is disagreeing with the rules of argumentation. And I'm the narcissist?
Cal: "I have distinguished my comments from apologists here by referring to this objective standard -- the rules of argument."
Indeed, per #34, you have referred to them many, many times. What you have yet to accomplish is demonstrating how those rules were violated. You attempted it a few posts ago, and I showed you were wrong.
Cal: "Note how apologists just say things equivalent to, “I disagree therefore you’re wrong.”
I haven't seen a single occurrence of this. I have seen us all disagree with you when you are wrong (notice how often we disagree with you), yet you take this disagreement to mean that we are violating the rules of argument, which you can't demonstrate but still believe. Obviously, you believe you are the sole judge of argumentation. You may have memorized a list of rules, but you have no idea what they mean or how to apply them. Self-criticism is not a tool in the skeptic handbag.
Cal: "Nope."
Yep.
Cal: "You just list a bunch of instances of you’re saying “Nuh uh,” and somehow think your self-reference serves as a refutation."
"Nuh uh" is a delusional misrepresentation of what I said. I would not be surprised if it's all you are capable of comprehending, based on your behavior. "I can't understand what he is saying, but I know he's disagreeing with me and I'm the standard for whether arguments are good, so he's wrong."
Cal: "And your disagreement exposes you to the criticism that you are bad at evaluating reality."
And this statement proves you are deluded and believe you are the sole arbiter of arguments.
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how your amazing prediction was spot-on. I think we both know why you are avoiding it. Not capable of it, are you?
@Cal,
If you're concerned about the "rules of argument". The first step is to understand what the argument is saying before examining if it violates any rules.
The fact that you still assert #20 after being informed that:
1) Aristotle did not believe the universe had an origin
2) Therefore the "first mover" refers to present motion, not the origin of motion
3) That all knowledgeable scholars and commentators agree with 1) and 2)
4) That relevant passages of Physics were quoted to confirm 2)
5) The English and Latin verbs of any version of the First Way confirm 2)
demonstrates that you simply don't understand the argument in the first place.
Whatever argument you think you are criticizing is not the First Way but instead is a Strawman which of course it the fallacy you two have peddled since the beginning.
@Cal
>> "The difference is that I refer to an objective standard (the rules of argument), and apologists instead regularly refer only to their own (subjective) determinations."
This is laughable.
I can live with disagreement, but you are going beyond that.
You IGNORE what we say. After 1900 comments you pretend nothing has been said to address your criticisms. I'm not sure why. Maybe you don't understand what is being said. Maybe you aren't convinced and need more information. Maybe your scientism is hindering you. I don't really know. But you are ignoring what we are saying and pretending that your criticisms haven't been addressed. They have.
It's a sickness. You keep repeating statements that have been rebutted LONG ago. You should not be saying them but you do. Why is that?
SteveK said...
" You keep repeating statements that have been rebutted LONG ago. You should not be saying them but you do. Why is that?"
--For myself it is that with respect to the many structural and rational defects of the First Way the rebuttals have been logically false.
The first way suffers from begging the question, ad hoc assertion, false dichotomy, non-sequitur, and is not even complete as an argument for the existence of god.
Finer points of criticism about it can also be made but at it's core the argument is logically invalid as well as containing false premise and is thus glaringly unsound.
4a and 4, and 5 are plainly begging the question, for example.
~~U therefore ~I
~I therefore U
The First Way is simply ridiculous. Aquinas follows this pattern in the other 4 ways as well, which all contain tautologies and false premises.
No sound rebuttals to these facts of argumentation have been presented. For reference see:
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
May 11, 2017 9:00 AM
June 27, 2017 8:44 PM
Dusty
Explain once again how lines 4-5 are a fallacy because I don't see the fallacy you are referring to.
Dusty,
I suspect my recent comment below makes reference to your complaint. To explain why it's not begging the question you'd have to look at the metaphysics of Aquinas where he discusses causality, forms, substance, essence, existence, etc. That sets the stage for what you see in the FW. As we explained from the start, the FW argument was not meant to be a stand-alone argument.
Me: "The skeptics have argued that the FW argument is invalid because the existence of a unique (potential -> actual) being that does not require an (actual) to explain itself is a possible solution.
This is an nonsensical idea under the metaphysics of Aquinas. More would have to be said to explain why, but the short answer is the FW argument isn't guilty of engaging in a logically fallacy when it rules out the existence of a unique being like that."
Stardusty: "The first way suffers from begging the question, ad hoc assertion, false dichotomy, non-sequitur, and is not even complete as an argument for the existence of god."
Cal is also fond of tossing out strings of undemonstrated fallacies, as if asserting the existence of the fallacy makes it so.
We refuted his list and he claimed that refutation proved his amazing prediction, so we know the quality of his argumentative skills. You present the same list that we already refuted, but you claim we did not refute them.
Demonstrate, please.
In the FW, motion is an example of secondary causation (efficient causation). The reason secondary causation cannot proceed to infinity is because - wait for it - it's secondary. It has nothing to do with math. Aquinas argues that final causality is the cause of all causes, meaning it is first cause.
Legion: "I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how your amazing prediction was spot-on. I think we both know why you are avoiding it. Not capable of it, are you?"
The demonstration is the subsequent comments of apologists since I made my prediction.
My prediction (again): "The apologists will be so upset over the facts making them appear ridiculous, again, that they will chatter amongst one another and agree on some falsehood or set of falsehoods, thus avoiding the feeling of being ridiculous."
The subsequent comments from apologists confirm my prediction. You disagree. Since you appear delusional to me, this is easily explainable -- you don't perceive reality in the same way I do, and that is the explanation for your being dumbfounded that the subsequent comments from apologists fulfilled my prediction.
Asking for a demonstration of my prediction is the same as asking for a demonstration of the apologists's comments. My demonstration is the subsequent comments. Sic.
My explanation for my prediction: "But apologists have to pretend that the fallacy of consensus is what makes an argument a good one. / And this pretending is what exposes them as the mob they are; mob agreement (ad populum) doesn't make an argument a good one. The (objective) rules of good argument are what determines that. / And that is why they fail to win at intellectual argument."
This is an explanation for the prior prediction. This is to provide background for how I formed my prediction. Since my prediction was confirmed by the subsequent chatter of the apologists here, I feel vindicated, and have gained new confidence in psychological explanation predicting what apologists will say next.
Your apparent disagreement is largely unimportant to me, since you appear delusional; if you were to agree with me at this point I would find that slightly discomfiting. And I take comfort that I do not share your delusion because my prediction proved correct; the delusional should be, everything considered, bad at prediction.
@Cal
>> "The subsequent comments from apologists confirm my prediction."
This only confirm your psychological projections onto the apologist.
>> "You disagree"
This is what confirms your predictions were wrong. Your projections don't determine if someone is actually upset or avoiding a feeling.
When skeptics resort to psychological projection to justify their conclusions, it's a sure sign they don't have any real evidence.
stevek: "This only confirm your psychological projections onto the apologist."
I don't think you understand what psychological projection refers to.
stevek: "This is what confirms your predictions were wrong. Your projections don't determine if someone is actually upset or avoiding a feeling."
Try to keep up. My predictions were based on an explanation for behavior that rests on psychological observation. I didn't predict that apologists would merely be upset; I predicted that apologists would be so upset THAT they would behave a certain way. The comments fulfilled my prediction. This lends credence to my explanation, from which I had based my prediction.
stevek: "When skeptics resort to psychological projection to justify their conclusions, it's a sure sign they don't have any real evidence."
The evidence is the comments from apologists that followed my prediction. That is real evidence. And as I explained above, I based this prediction based on what I observe to be the psychology of apologists.
So, per Cal's explanation of his amazing prediction, we apologists would be SO UPSET by his words that we would...continue to disagree with him. And by continuing to disagree with him, this proved that we were SO UPSET that we would continue to disagree with him.
I think Cal finally broke down.
Hey Cal,
What, precisely, would have disconfirmed your prediction?
Unbeknownst to you, Cal, I silently predicted that your delusions, brought about by your atheism, would cause you to post another comment. You did. My predictions were correct as they were based on an explanation for the behavior that rests on psychological observation.
The evidence for you atheism-induced delusions is your comment that followed my prediction. It's real evidence.
Case closed. Enough said.
P.S. - you are a crank
I too have a prediction.
Cal will compulsively keep posting.
Strawdusty too ☺
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "The first way suffers from begging the question, ad hoc assertion, false dichotomy, non-sequitur, and is not even complete as an argument for the existence of god."
" Demonstrate, please."
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
May 11, 2017 9:00 AM
June 28, 2017 8:34 AM
teveK said...
" Dusty
Explain once again how lines 4-5 are a fallacy because I don't see the fallacy you are referring to."
--In short
4a therefore 4
4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a)
Alternatively
~~U therefore ~I
~I therefore U
Begging the question.
The technique Aquinas uses to attempt to hide the question begging (and in other arguments his tautologies) is to use slightly different words that mean effectively the same thing, and to use an extremely terse, truncated, and convoluted wording, lest the question begging become obvious even to the credulous believer.
June 28, 2017 7:44 AM
Legion: "Hey Cal,What, precisely, would have disconfirmed your prediction?"
A specific, precise and focused attempt by an apologist to rebut a single of the criticisms of the First Way offered here, using the rules of good argument.
This is why I keep on bringing up the rules of good argument.
It's obvious that apologists don't respect the rules of good argument -- they either don't understand what the rules are (what a fallacy is and why it is bad), or don't have the ability to recognize violations when presented to them in an argument.
Here is the routine:
1. Skeptic points out a violation of the rules of good argument.
2. Apologist disagrees WITHOUT ACTUALLY REFUTING . (<-- THIS IS IMPORTANT)
3. Skeptic points out that refutation fails because refutation does not abide by the rules of good argument.
4. Apologist claims fallacious refutation succeeded by appealing to consensus among other apologists, NOT THE RULES OF GOOD ARGUMENT.
Do you see the shell game?
The process starts with an implicit agreement among both parties to analyze an argument by the rules of good argument. The process ends with the apologist falsely claiming to have refuted the criticism (usually relying on ad populum at one or both ends).
Much of this hinges on the inability of the apologist to recognize a violation of the rules of good argument ipso facto. You can see this explicitly with stevek, who says that he abides by the rules of good argument, but when presented with one doesn't recognize it -- but this is clearly common to all apologists.
Were an apologist to approach analysis of something like the First With WITHOUT this fundamental deceit (agreement in principle but not in fact) that would disconfirm my prediction.
I'm still waiting for you to respond to what I said, Cal.
Thats a non-answer, Cal. Talk about a shell game.
Legion: "I'm still waiting for you to respond to what I said, Cal."
I responded to your last question (see: June 29, 2017 5:59 AM ).
Saying that you are waiting for my response is (surprise!) false.
Perhaps you meant something else that isn't demonstrably false. But in order to know what you meant, you'd have to be able to think and write clearly.
That's on you.
As I've mentioned before, my powers may be awesome, but even they have limits.
I'm still waiting for you to respond to what I said, Cal.
Legion: "I'm still waiting for you to respond to what I said, Cal."
False. See my response: June 29, 2017 5:59 AM.
Why so demonstrably lie?
In case the above baffles you, Cal, I'm simply utilizing the exact same strategy you are - denying that what you said has been responded to. I responded to your assertions on June 27 at 7:17. You claim I did not, which is either lying and saying I did not ever respond, or baselessly asserting it does not address what you said.
Either way, pathetic for someone who memorized a list of fallacies without knowing what they are and asserts the rules of good argumentation without being able to apply them.
Legion: "I responded to your assertions..."
Which one of my assertions, exactly? Quote my assertion to which you think you responded.
Then, be explicit on what in your June 27 at 7:17 reply explicitly responded to my assertion. Quote your response, exactly and in full.
Did you read this in response to what you had written:
Me: "You just list a bunch of instances of you’re saying “Nuh uh,” and somehow think your self-reference serves as a refutation. But all you’ve indicated is that you disagree. And your disagreement exposes you to the criticism that you are bad at evaluating reality. Your disagreement is another indication of the extent to which you are deluded."
You claimed I did not write the above -- (Legion: "You claim I did not [respond]..." , saying that I lied by claiming you did not respond. But a) I did not claim that you did not respond (that would have been a lie, like the one you wrote before this), and b) shows that you are confused by simple terms like "respond" and pointing out how your response qualifies as fallacious.
You are continuing to conform EXACTLY to what I described as the routine of deceit in which apologists operate in my response to you on June 29, 2017 5:59 AM.
This is another amazing example of a subject being unable to act contrary to a prediction even when explicitly challenged to avoid doing so.
Which is compatible with a kind of delusion.
The rules of good argumentation are a hot topic these days.
So, per the rules of good argumentation, we will not pretend that my post on June 27 at 7:17 did not occur. We will not make assertions without demonstrating that those assertions are true. So, Cal said things, and I responded. Now the ball is in Cal's court to:
Explain precisely how inertia defeats the First Way.
Explain precisely how a sustaining force is not required for a caboose to overcome friction and keep moving.
Demonstrate that I don't understand inertia.
Explain what is unclear about "in a realized state".
Explain what is meant by "because it conflates existence as matter, and also existence as matter in motion", perhaps by referring to the premise of the First Way that asserts this.
Demonstrate that things do not have potential states.
Demonstrate that things do not have properties, inherent traits, or capacities for change (same answer as above).
Demonstrate that "potentially exists" is synonymous with "moves things", perhaps by referring to the premise of the First Way or the idea in A-T philosophy that asserts this.
Demonstrate that the First Way does not address why a First Mover would be necessary over an infinite series of movers.
Demonstrate that we have not addressed "everyone understands to be God" multiple times.
Demonstrate that "everyone understands to be God" is part of the argument, since it is not included in the Summa Contra Gentiles (addressed to unbelievers) as it is in the Summa Theologica (addressed to Christians).
Cal: "This is another amazing example of a subject being unable to act contrary to a prediction even when explicitly challenged to avoid doing so"
Your amazing "prediction" was that I would continue to disagree with you. I bet you could get stellar odds in Vegas with that "prediction".
No, Cal, you are not the sole judge of good argumentation. I responded to you, now it's your turn to respond to what I said.
Also, regarding your "prediction":
demonstrate that I or any of us was upset (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that any facts have made us appear ridiculous (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that any past facts have made us appear ridiculous (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we chattered amongst ourselves (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we agreed upon a falsehood (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we were trying to avoid feeling ridiculous (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate we are adopting the fallacy of concensus (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we are pretending (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we are acting as a mob, any more than you and Stardusty (3v2, not that different) (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we are adopting ad populum tactics (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
explain the rules of good argument, and explain how we have failed to abide by them (note that, in a crazy twist, "explain" is not synonymous with "assert")
>> "4a therefore 4
4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a)"
I explained this on June 28, 2017 8:28 AM. Haines is answering the question 'why can't it proceed to infinity?' with 2 different sentences that both say the same thing about an infinite series. The focus of (a) and (b) is on the the *nature of being*, in this case the nature of the infinite series.
Why?
a) Because, by nature, an infinite series without another thing to move it is a motionless series.
b) Because, by nature, an infinite series does not move unless it is moved by another
The days of you hiding behind bald assertions is over, Cal. I'm going to call you out, every single time I catch it, and continue asking for you to demonstrate that assertion to be accurate before I move on. Here's a prediction: You will opt to ignore me before you will actually try to abide by the rules of good argumentation, which does not include the bald assertions that you rely on.
My other comment at June 28, 2017 9:11 AM is also relevant - maybe more relevant.
Legion: "I responded to your assertions..."
Which one of my assertions, exactly? Quote my assertion to which you think you responded.
Then, be explicit on what in your June 27 at 7:17 reply explicitly responded to my assertion. Quote your response, exactly and in full.
If you think you can abide by the rules of good argument (which entails being careful, precise, and taking things one at time until resolved), then I will respond to each and every issue you raise.
Cal: "Quote my assertion to which you think you responded."
Certainly.
Cal: "Per the most recent spate of comments, objects do not need a “sustaining force” to continue moving. This fact is demonstrated broadly. Your misunderstanding of the forces involving motion and friction is what apparently prevents you from understanding this."
Me: "#44: "Asserting inertia as defeating the First Way (it does not)"
#80: "Baseless accusation that claiming a caboose must have a sustaining force to continue its movement – directly synonymous with overcoming the slowing effect of friction – is being willfully ignorant"
#83: "Baseless accusation that I don't understand inertia"
My responses were to point out that it has not been demonstrated that inertia is damaging to the First Way, to point out that a caboose does in fact require a sustaining force in order to keep moving over the effects of friction, and to point out that there is not a single rational reason to suspect I don't understand inertia.
Addressing what you wrote? Obviously so.
Cal: "To be in act is still muddled"
Me: "What is so difficult to understand about "in a realized state"?"
My response was to ask what was so complicated about "in a realized state", because I honestly do not understand what is difficult about that.
Addressing what you wrote? Obviously so.
Cal: "because it conflates existence as matter, and also existence as matter in motion."
Me: "What?"
My response was to ask what you were talking about, because I have no idea.
Addressing what you wrote? Obviously so.
Cal: "Potential things are said to exist, but they do not exist."
Me: "#1: "Denial that things have potential states (they do)"
#53: "Denial that things have properties, inherent traits and capacities for change, even though they do (not even using A-T terminology and still got denied)"
My response was to point out that it has not been demonstrated that things lack potential states, properties, inherent traits, or the capacity to change. Because they obviously have these things.
Addressing what you wrote? Obviously so.
Cal: "The first way says that a thing cannot both exist and potentially exist (ugh) in the same way, but that is the conclusion of the first mover (which exists, and also moves things)."
Me: ""Potentially exists" is not synonymous with "moves things"."
My response was to point out that "potentially exists" is not synonymous with "moves things".
Addressing what you wrote? Obviously so.
Cal: "The First Way is supposed to argue that a First Mover is necessary because an infinite regress is impossible; the First Way arbitrarily declares that an infinite regress is impossible without arguing for why that should be the case"
Me: "Actually, he outlines right there in the argument why that should be the case."
My response was to point out that the reason for why that should be the case is outlined in the argument.
Addressing what you wrote? Obviously so.
Cal: "The First Way declares that the First Mover everyone knows to be god without demonstrating this."
Me: "#12: "Denial that objections have been addressed (they were)"
#64: "Ignoring the writings and beliefs of the argument's authors in order to attack a strawman, and calling me arrogant for using the authors' beliefs to interpret the authors' argument, and even claiming that knowing their intent makes me less capable of knowing their intent"
This "objection" has been adequately addressed multiple times by all of us here, particularly bmiller."
My response was to point out that this has been addressed already (several times in fact), and that we know it's not a part of the argument structure because of the comparison of the First Way in the Summa Theologica, which is addressed to established Christians who already believe in God, and the First Way in the Summa Contra Gentiles, which is addressed to unbelievers. The "everyone knows to be god [sic]" line is only in the Christian message and not the missionary message. In other words, by using the writings of the author, we know without a doubt that "everyone knows to be God" is not part of the argument structure.
Explain precisely how inertia defeats the First Way.
Explain precisely how a sustaining force is not required for a caboose to overcome friction and keep moving.
Demonstrate that I don't understand inertia.
Explain what is unclear about "in a realized state".
Explain what is meant by "because it conflates existence as matter, and also existence as matter in motion", perhaps by referring to the premise of the First Way that asserts this.
Demonstrate that things do not have potential states.
Demonstrate that things do not have properties, inherent traits, or capacities for change (same answer as above).
Demonstrate that "potentially exists" is synonymous with "moves things", perhaps by referring to the premise of the First Way or the idea in A-T philosophy that asserts this.
Demonstrate that the First Way does not address why a First Mover would be necessary over an infinite series of movers.
Demonstrate that we have not addressed "everyone understands to be God" multiple times.
Demonstrate that "everyone understands to be God" is part of the argument, since it is not included in the Summa Contra Gentiles (addressed to unbelievers) as it is in the Summa Theologica (addressed to Christians).
Regarding the prediction:
demonstrate that I or any of us was upset (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that any facts have made us appear ridiculous (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that any past facts have made us appear ridiculous (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we chattered amongst ourselves (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we agreed upon a falsehood (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we were trying to avoid feeling ridiculous (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate we are adopting the fallacy of concensus (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we are pretending (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we are acting as a mob, any more than you and Stardusty (3v2, not that different) (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
demonstrate that we are adopting ad populum tactics (note that "demonstrate" is not synonymous with "assert")
explain the rules of good argument, and explain how we have failed to abide by them (note that, in a crazy twist, "explain" is not synonymous with "assert")
I too have a prediction.
Cal will compulsively keep posting.
Strawdusty too ☺
Just saying ☺
"4a therefore 4
4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a)
...
Begging the question.
"
In addition to SteveK's latest response, 4 refers to a first mover of an essentially ordered series being necessary while 5 concludes the first mover of 4 must be unmoved.
4a
a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another,
5
(5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:
Notice how the phrase "which is not moved" is part of 5 and is not part of 4.
Grammar.
SteveK said...
>> "4a therefore 4
4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a)"
" I explained this on June 28, 2017 8:28 AM. Haines is answering the question 'why can't it proceed to infinity?' with 2 different sentences that both say the same thing about an infinite series."
--You didn't explain anything on the 28th, just a few of your vague words that do not specifically reference the actual words of Aquinas.
" The focus of (a) and (b) is on the the *nature of being*, in this case the nature of the infinite series."
--Now you are pulling in woo out of nowhere.
Here is a translation of Aquinas:
But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other
This is how Haines chooses to break the argument down:
(4) But this cannot proceed to infinity:
a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another,
b. Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover, in the same way that a cane is not moved unless it is moved by a hand.
(5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:
Your vague notions of the meaning of being or whatever are irrelevant to the structure of the argument as worded.
To say
Y because X
is to say
X therefore Y
to say
"seeing that"
is to say
"because"
Aquinas chose the "because" sentence structure. Logical notation uses the "therefore" structure, so one must work backwards to unpack the words of Aquinas into "therefore" structure.
So, working from the full text translation we get
"subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover"
therefore
"there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover"
therefore
"this cannot go on to infinity"
Using Haines we get
4b therefore 4a therefore 4
U therefore ~~U therefore ~I
I = there is an infinite regress of moved movers
U = There is an Unmoved mover.
Later Aquinas says"
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
4 therefore 5
~I therefore U
To recap
U therefore ~~U therefore ~I
~I therefore U
Begging the question.
June 29, 2017 8:45 AM
Legion of Logic said...
" Demonstrate that "everyone understands to be God" is part of the argument, since it is not included in the Summa Contra Gentiles (addressed to unbelievers) as it is in the Summa Theologica (addressed to Christians)."
June 29, 2017 10:19 AM
I will quote David Haines, a now PhD, translator of Latin, and author of the OP.
http://philosopherdhaines.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-defense-of-aquinass-first-way.html
" In this article, the fourth article in the blog series Contending for God, sponsored by the Canadian Apologetics Coalition, I will first outline Thomas Aquinas’s first way, then comment on the premises.[1] Aquinas says that this is the most evident or manifest way to demonstrate that God is."
"(5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:
a. and this is what all consider to be God.[13]"
"[13]It should be noted that this conclusion is looking forward to that which Aquinas will then deduce from this conclusion. As Norman Kretzmann, in his commentary on the first book of Aquinas’s Summa Contra Gentiles has remarked, the attribute of a first unmoved mover, even when coupled with the conclusions of Aquinas’s other arguments, cannot be said to be God in the sense of a personal intellectual being that governs the entire universe (Kretzmann, The Metaphysics of Theism, 84-113.). So, it is a bit early to declare the existence of God, properly speaking. However, this declaration is warranted if we consider that the conclusion of this demonstration will allow us to deduce other attributes of this unmoved mover which will permit us to say, without a doubt, that we have demonstrated the existence of what can be properly called God."
Clearly, Legion, Aquinas is making an argument for the existence of God, uppercase G. As such the last phrase "and this is what all consider to be God" is essential to this argument, as without it there is no argument for God, only an argument for a first mover.
Still, Aquinas fails to complete his argument, as Haines alludes to rather apologetically in [13]. Aquinas only argues for a thought of God, the imagination of God, because he only argues for the human understanding of God. Haines apologetically takes this to be an argument for a proper God.
@Strawdusty,
Me:
In addition to SteveK's latest response, 4 refers to a first mover of an essentially ordered series being necessary while 5 concludes the first mover of 4 must be unmoved.
4a
'a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another,
5
(5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:'
Notice how the phrase "which is not moved" is part of 5 and is not part of 4.
Grammar.
Strawdusty again:
Begging the question.
Once again, 4 refers to the first mover being necessary for an essentially ordered series to be in motion. Now that first mover could be moving itself or not moving at all. 5 uses the previous conclusion that material things can't move themselves and the conclusion that an essentially ordered series requires a first mover to come to the final conclusion that the first mover must be unmoved (not moving at all).
There is no question begging: first mover ≠ first mover put in motion by no other
Dusty: "Clearly, Legion, Aquinas is making an argument for the existence of God, uppercase G."
Haines: "Finally, note that this particular demonstration, if it is valid and sound, does not necessarily demonstrate the existence of the triune God of the Christian New Testament; no philosophical demonstration can move from our knowledge of the world to the existence of the triune God of the Christian New Testament. If this demonstration is successful, all that it shows is that some form of Theism is true."
Aquinas: But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. There fore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other
Breakdown:
1. But this cannot go on to infinity
2. because then there would be no first mover
3. and, consequently, no other mover
4. seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand.
5. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
Exposition:
1. But this [a series of things being moved by things that are being moved] cannot go onto infinity [one of the two solutions, either there is an infinite series or there is not]
2. because then [if there was an infinity of movers] there would be no first mover [by logical necessity]
3. and consequently [the logical consequence of no first mover] no other mover
4. seeing that subsequent movers [things getting moved by other things] move insomuch as they are put in motion by the first mover [the thing driving the entire series of motion], as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand [illustration of the point].
5. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other
Now, to write the exact same thing Aquinas wrote except using modern language based on the bracketed thoughts:
But a series of things being moved by things being moved is either infinite or it is not. It cannot be infinite, because if there was an infinite series of movers, then by logical necessity there would be no first mover. But if there was no first mover, then by logical necessity there would be no other mover. After all, things that are getting moved by other things are able to move only to the extent that they are being driven by the source of the series' motion, much like a staff only moves because it is being moved by a hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a source of motion that is itself not being moved by something else.
Breakdown:
1. A series of things being moved by things being moved can either be infinite or it cannot, and the argument proposed it cannot.
2. If the series was infinite, there would logically be no source of motion for the series.
3. If there is no source of motion for the series, there would be no motion in the series.
4. This is because things getting moved by things getting moved can only move to the extent that the source of motion in the series is moving them. A staff being moved by a hand illustrates this point.
5. Therefore there must be a source of motion for things that are being moved by things that are being moved, and this source can't be getting moved by something else or else the problem remains.
Show where begging the question occurs. I have no interest in logical notation, plain English is fine.
Dusty
As bmiller correctly stated, U is not part of 4. Only a first mover is part of 4. We know a first mover is required because it's already been established that these series do not move themselves.
Legion of Logic said...
" Show where begging the question occurs."
Here:
"things getting moved can only move to the extent that the source of motion in the series is moving them. "
--This presupposes that the natural state of the universe is not motion.
What was the base state of existence?
Absolutely nothing at all? This logically would require something to pop out of nothing for no reason, a very great effect without a cause, the effect of creation ex nihilo by no cause.
Eternal existence that was motionless and then began to move? This logically would require something that can move itself, or something that can move something else without itself moving, all while eternally existing.
Eternal existence of stuff in motion? This logically requires and infinite series of real events.
You and Aquinas have merely ad hoc chosen one logical absurdity over another, attempted to hide that choice in a premise, and then use that arbitrary choice to prove your own arbitrary choice.
Begging the question.
June 30, 2017 8:00 AM
bmiller said...
" 4 refers to the first mover being necessary for an essentially ordered series to be in motion. "
--That is begging the question, the assumption that every real series of events must have a first member.
That is an inductive assertion, not a proven realized fact.
All alternatives to the explanation for the origin of motion are irrational. This problem has not been solved and published, ever, by anybody.
All Aquinas does is ad hoc pick a favorite irrationality, make it part of his premise, then use that ad hoc choice between irrationalities to try to make his choice seem rational in circular reasoning.
Begging the question.
June 30, 2017 7:50 AM
Legion: "things getting moved can only move to the extent that the source of motion in the series is moving them."
Dusty: "This presupposes that the natural state of the universe is not motion."
How is that begging the question? The natural state a caboose is rest, not motion. Something is required to move it. This is true even if what you say is true.
I think I see what Dusty is getting at. By "begging the question" he means that Aquinas is assuming his metaphysical reality is correct and that Dusty's metaphysical reality is incorrect.
Dusty thinks Aquinas failed to consider these other "irrational explanations" as Dusty likes to call them.
But this charge is false. Aquinas spends a lot of time analyzing and arguing for his metaphysics. The FW argument is rooted in those other arguments. That is not begging the question. He's done the work.
If Dusty thinks Aquinas is wrong, Dusty needs to put forward hundreds of pages of detailed arguments just like Aquinas did. The begging the question charge is false.
SteveK said...
" all that it shows is that some form of Theism is true."
--Theism requires and existent god, a god outside the imaginations of human beings.
But Aquinas makes an assertion that is false, as well as failing to assert and existent god of any sort, merely falsely asserting "everyone", and only going as far as human thought, or understanding, with no logical connection to an actually existing god of any sort, as is required for theism.
The last phrase is critically important to the First Way as an argument for God, but it utterly fails in every respect.
June 30, 2017 7:59 AM
@Strawdusty,
" 4 refers to the first mover being necessary for an essentially ordered series to be in motion. "
--That is begging the question, the assumption that every real series of events must have a first member.
Nonsense. There is nothing circular about arguing for the necessity of a first mover in a series of moving material things.
That is an inductive assertion, not a proven realized fact.
Nonsense. Reasons for a first mover is given in the argument and therefore no "assertion" was made.
All alternatives to the explanation for the origin of motion are irrational. This problem has not been solved and published, ever, by anybody.
I assume you still think the First Way is about the beginning of motion in the ancient past. You are wrong because:
1) Aristotle did not believe the universe had an origin
2) Therefore the "first mover" refers to present motion, not the origin of motion
3) That all knowledgeable scholars and commentators agree with 1) and 2)
4) That relevant passages of Physics were quoted to confirm 2)
5) The English and Latin verbs of any version of the First Way confirm 2)
But it's entertaining to see you maintain the absurdity.
All Aquinas does is ad hoc pick a favorite irrationality, make it part of his premise, then use that ad hoc choice between irrationalities to try to make his choice seem rational in circular reasoning.
Begging the question.
You made a lot of assertions but haven't shown any circularity. I'm coming to the conclusion you don't know what "begging the question" even means.
SteveK said...
" I think I see what Dusty is getting at. By "begging the question" he means that Aquinas is assuming his metaphysical reality is correct and that Dusty's metaphysical reality is incorrect."
--Close, but I don't have a particular answer to this problem.
I am not here to tell you I have solved this problem.
I am here to tell you that you have not solved this problem, Aquinas did not solve this problem, and nobody has solved this problem and published the solution.
" Dusty thinks Aquinas failed to consider these other "irrational explanations" as Dusty likes to call them."
--What he considered is not so very important to me. He failed to account for any such considerations in the argument, making his argument logically invalid.
" If Dusty thinks Aquinas is wrong, Dusty needs to put forward hundreds of pages of detailed arguments just like Aquinas did. The begging the question charge is false."
--You have it back to front. Aquinas fails to put his work into the argument, instead merely presenting a circular argument that proceeds from 4b to 4a to 4 and back to 4b in the form of 5.
June 30, 2017 8:58 AM
Stardusty: "What was the base state of existence?
Irrelevant in a discussion of present movers, like the First Way. "First" in first mover is synonymous with "primary", not "original". That God may have initiated motion at some point in the past is tangential to what the First Way is discussing.
So, no begging the question that I see.
SteveK said...
" The natural state a caboose is rest, not motion. "
--Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion.
Aside from motion in our observable universe every caboose is a buzzing beehive of activity with all its atoms jiggling madly about.
The idea that a caboose is at rest is merely an illusion clung to by those who remain mired in erroneous ancient thinking.
June 30, 2017 8:40 AM
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "What was the base state of existence?
" Irrelevant in a discussion of present movers, like the First Way. "First" in first mover is synonymous with "primary", not "original". That God may have initiated motion at some point in the past is tangential to what the First Way is discussing."
--The causation of motion necessarily takes time. In considering an infinity of causation one must necessarily consider an infinity of time.
You seem to have some fuzzy notion of everything having a series of causes in this present instant. Even if that were somehow the case (it isn't) then an infinity of causes would require an infinity of distances, extending out infinitely into space, all of which leads to the absurd notion that causal effects can propagate through the vast reaches of space instantly.
There is no such thing as "present movers". One thing moves an another which moves another in a time sequence of events, necessarily.
" So, no begging the question that I see."
--I have best wishes and hope that one day your vision will clear up and improve. You have come a long way since your YEC days, but your journey is not yet at an end.
June 30, 2017 9:57 AM
@Strawdusty,
You seem to have some fuzzy notion of everything having a series of causes in this present instant. Even if that were somehow the case (it isn't) then an infinity of causes would require an infinity of distances, extending out infinitely into space, all of which leads to the absurd notion that causal effects can propagate through the vast reaches of space instantly.
You have just agreed with the First Way's assessment of why an infinite essentially ordered series is not possible.
"but your journey is not yet at an end.
Stardusty: "Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion."
Every reasonable person knows exactly why this is entirely irrelevant to the caboose example.
Me: "The natural state a caboose is rest, not motion"
Dusty: "Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion."
And when the force of an engine is applied, it begins to move relative to its current rest position. It's ironic that you're now arguing that Newton was wrong about bodies at rest.
Stardusty: "In considering an infinity of causation one must necessarily consider an infinity of time."
A caboose is coupled to a train and is moving at a steady pace. Why is the caboose moving at a steady pace, rather than slowing and stopping due to friction? Is it because something pushed/pulled it at some point in the past, granting it a steady movement that overcomes friction continuously after the force was removed, or is something actively sustaining it as it moves?
Dusty,
>> "You seem to have some fuzzy notion of everything having a series of causes in this present instant. Even if that were somehow the case (it isn't) then an infinity of causes would require an infinity of distances, extending out infinitely into space, all of which leads to the absurd notion that causal effects can propagate through the vast reaches of space instantly."
You're saying that a physical infinity is impossible since the effect will be infinitely away - never to reach us here. You're saying that the series cannot be infinite - which is what the FW says.
So where is the disagreement?
SteveK said...
" U is not part of 4. Only a first mover is part of 4. "
June 30, 2017 8:14 AM
(4) But this cannot proceed to infinity:
a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another,
b. Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover, in the same way that a cane is not moved unless it is moved by a hand.
"U = There is an Unmoved mover."
There is something about the theistic brain that continually asserts that items plainly written in the argument are somehow not part of that argument. Some sort of selective reading problem?
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion."
" Every reasonable person knows exactly why this is entirely irrelevant to the caboose example."
--Empty response.
Aquinas is inserting the impossibility of the infinite regress of motion. If you are not willing to extend your thinking to the whole of what is known to exist then you lack the conceptual skills to analyze this problem.
June 30, 2017 10:56 AM
Legion, citing my comment: Cal Metzger: "Per the most recent spate of comments, objects do not need a “sustaining force” to continue moving. This fact is demonstrated broadly. Your misunderstanding of the forces involving motion and friction is what apparently prevents you from understanding this."
Legion, citing what he meant as his responses to my comment: "#44: "Asserting inertia as defeating the First Way (it does not)"
In my comment above I pointed out that objects in motion tend to stay in motion (without needing force applied at the given reference frame in which their motion is recorded — see, objects in space, etc.), and that believing otherwise suggests you don't understand modern physics.
Notice that I didn't say that "inertia (alone) defeats the First Way."
Do you see the difference?
I said two things:
1. Objects in motion do not require a sustaining force (objects will tend to stay in motion given that they are in motion — once an object’s motion is established, that motion will remain until another force acts upon the object, such as friction, a collision, or gravity).
2. You still don't seem to understand this broadly established concept (per your earlier comments, which I’d be happy to cite again, but I have already and I don’t think that’s necessary).
But, to be clear, to the extent that apologists here insist that the First Way contains the premise that motion requires a force at the time of the current reference frame (and that things in motion therefore do not tend to stay in motion), then that is known to be false. Arguments with false premises are unsound, and by the rules of argument they are bad arguments.
So, your first “response” is specious (as has been pointed out in similar comments prior).
When I have time, I will move on to your next “response.”
The word "unmoved" is not part of 4. This is my point. It's true. I can read.
Cal
>> "But, to be clear, to the extent that apologists here insist that the First Way contains the premise that motion requires a force at the time of the current reference frame (and that things in motion therefore do not tend to stay in motion), then that is known to be false. Arguments with false premises are unsound, and by the rules of argument they are bad arguments."
A steel forging press is one example where the FW is stating verifiably correct premises. Referring me to other examples doesn't invalidate this one. You need to deal with this one in order to say the FW is unsound.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "In considering an infinity of causation one must necessarily consider an infinity of time."
" A caboose is coupled to a train and is moving at a steady pace. Why is the caboose moving at a steady pace, rather than slowing and stopping due to friction? Is it because something pushed/pulled it at some point in the past, granting it a steady movement that overcomes friction continuously after the force was removed, or is something actively sustaining it as it moves?"
--Why are you only thinking of the caboose? What is causing the locomotive to move? What caused that, and the next, and the next, ad infinitum?
"If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity"
--Aquinas cites 3 objects, and then extrapolates to a consideration of an infinity of objects being put in motion.
1. that which is put in motion
2. another
3. another again
4. consideration of infinitely many others.
So, what exactly is being put in motion by what in your example?
Fuel is put in motion by a fuel pump.
Air is put in motion by atmospheric pressure.
The pistons are put in motion by the oxidation reaction of fuel and air.
The crankshaft is put in motion by the pistons.
The generator is put in motion by the crankshaft.
The traction motors are put in motion by the generator.
The locomotive wheels are put in motion by the traction motors.
The air is put in motion by the locomotive.
The first trailing car is put in motion by the locomotive.
The second trailing car is put in motion by the first.
The caboose is put in motion by the last trailing car.
Of course, I skipped many, many players in this game.
Where did the fuel come from? How did the locomotive get manufactured? Where did the electromagnetic radiation to grow the plants that made the fuel come from? Where did the sun come from? Where did our galaxy come from? Where did our big bang come from?
Aquinas was considering an infinity of causes. Clearly, this can only be considered over vast stretches of time and space.
No reasonable person would limit their thinking on this fundamental riddle in the way you have limited your thinking on this subject.
June 30, 2017 11:01 AM
Stardusty: "If you are not willing to extend your thinking to the whole of what is known to exist then you lack the conceptual skills to analyze this problem."
Perhaps English isn't your first language, but when SteveK says a caboose at rest, he is obviously meaning relative to the surface of the earth. Asserting orbital motion as a response to "a caboose at rest" is asinine.
Stardusty: "Why are you only thinking of the caboose? What is causing the locomotive to move? What caused that, and the next, and the next, ad infinitum?"
You were doing good there, but then you used "caused" instead of "is causing".
Stardusty: "Fuel is put in motion by a fuel pump.
Air is put in motion by atmospheric pressure.
The pistons are put in motion by the oxidation reaction of fuel and air.
The crankshaft is put in motion by the pistons.
The generator is put in motion by the crankshaft.
The traction motors are put in motion by the generator.
The locomotive wheels are put in motion by the traction motors.
The air is put in motion by the locomotive.
The first trailing car is put in motion by the locomotive.
The second trailing car is put in motion by the first.
The caboose is put in motion by the last trailing car."
Very, very good. Note that these things are concurrent, in that the effect cannot be sustained if the cause is removed. Remove the fuel pump, the fuel will not flow. Remove atmospheric pressure, air will not flow. Remove combustion, the pistons will not move. Remove the pistons, the crankshaft will not move. Remove the crankshaft, the generator will not move. Remove the generator, the traction motors will not move. Remove the traction motors, the wheels will not move. Remove the locomotive, the first car (and the rest) will not move. This is what makes something an essentially ordered series - the effect is dependent upon a sustaining cause.
Now, contrast that with your next list:
Stardusty: "Where did the fuel come from? How did the locomotive get manufactured? Where did the electromagnetic radiation to grow the plants that made the fuel come from? Where did the sun come from? Where did our galaxy come from? Where did our big bang come from?"
The source of the fuel can be erased, and the fuel will still exist. The manufacturing facility for the locomotive can be dismantled, and the locomotive will still exist. The source of the electromagnetic radiation can be removed, and the fuel that exists will still exist. The source of the sun could be gone and the sun will still exist. Same with the galaxy. Same with the Big Bang. Those are effects that do not depend upon the cause to continue. These things are not part of an essentially ordered series, and thus they are not the subject of the First Way.
SteveK said...
" A steel forging press is one example where the FW is stating verifiably correct premises. Referring me to other examples doesn't invalidate this one. You need to deal with this one in order to say the FW is unsound."
--Apparently you have not analyzed the motions of a steel forging press in a significant way.
The motor moves the pump, which moves the oil, which moves the cylinder, which moves the die which moves the forging. This all takes time, and to start with the motor is arbitrary. Consider the electricity, the generating station, the fuel, the sun, the galaxy, our big bang.
There is your causal series.
I think you might be thinking of the die coming to a stop or something, dunno. All these motions get converted to molecular motion which is heat.
Heat is motion.
Big wheel keep on turning, Proud Mary keep on burning, rollin, rollin, rollin on a river.
June 30, 2017 12:06 PM
Cal: "In my comment above I pointed out that objects in motion tend to stay in motion (without needing force applied at the given reference frame in which their motion is recorded — see, objects in space, etc.), and that believing otherwise suggests you don't understand modern physics."
Everyone here understands inertia. What some people here apparently doesn't understand is that a caboose cannot overcome friction by itself, but rather needs a sustaining force to maintain motion over the ground, which is what we have been talking about.
Cal: "Notice that I didn't say that "inertia (alone) defeats the First Way."
If there was no example of motion that required a sustaining force to continue, then the First Way would indeed be defeated soundly. Odd that you deny there are such examples but also deny that this defeats the argument, but okay. I concede you did not say that here.
Cal: "once an object’s motion is established, that motion will remain until another force acts upon the object, such as friction, a collision, or gravity"
Everything after "until" is what we are talking about - you have X motion of an object that encounters friction, a collision, gravity, etc. In order for X motion to continue and overcome the encounter, you need a sustaining force - inertia alone won't cut it.
Cal: "You still don't seem to understand this broadly established concept"
Everything I've written demonstrates that I indeed understand inertia.
Cal: "But, to be clear, to the extent that apologists here insist that the First Way contains the premise that motion requires a force at the time of the current reference" frame"
This is not accurate. The First Way requires that there be examples of motion that requires a force at the time of the current reference frame. Aquinas says "If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again." Notice the "if". The "if" is what makes a motion part of an essentially ordered series. In the case of "if not", then it would not be the subject of the First Way.
So to summarize, indeed you did not claim here that inertia alone defeats the First Way, even though it is the logical conclusion of your position if true. However, the accusation of anyone here not understanding inertia has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false.
>> "There is your causal series."
If you are implying that this example is not one that demonstrates the premises of the FW, then you'll need to explain.
Me: "Notice that I didn't say that "inertia (alone) defeats the First Way."
Legion: "If there was no example of motion that required a sustaining force to continue, then the First Way would indeed be defeated soundly."
Actually, the First Way is clear about this:
The First Way (from the OP): " But, ALL that IS moved, is moved by another."
If there is a single example of motion involving the application of force prior to the current reference frame (and that describes virtually all cases of motion), then the First Way fails on soundness.
So, either you understand inertia, which would mean that you understand that things in motion in the current reference frame were set in motion in a prior reference frame (in which case your understanding of inertia should reveal to you that the premise of the First Way that states that "ALL that IS moved, is moved by another is false),
or
You don't understand inertia, and think that ALL motion as observed in the current reference frame is the result of a force currently appled within that current frame.
And that is why I have suggested that you don't seem to really understand inertia, or respect the rules of argument.
@Cal
Either you're saying gravity isn't acting on the object in the current reference frame, or that the current force of gravity does nothing to sustain the motion.
Which one is it?
@Cal
Looking at 2a - 2f, which statement are you claiming is false under inertia? Explain how the statement would be reworded correctly.
Strawdusty "You seem to have some fuzzy notion of everything having a series of causes in this present instant. Even if that were somehow the case (it isn't) then an infinity of causes would require an infinity of distances, extending out infinitely into space, all of which leads to the absurd notion that causal effects can propagate through the vast reaches of space instantly."
SteveK
"You're saying that a physical infinity is impossible since the effect will be infinitely away - never to reach us here. You're saying that the series cannot be infinite - which is what the FW says."
Big wheel keep on turning, Proud Mary keep on burning, rollin, rollin, rollin on a river.
Fourth celebrations are starting early at Strawdusty-ville. ��
2 actual comments that made sense in the same day!
stevek: "Either you're saying gravity isn't acting on the object in the current reference frame..."
While, since the effects of gravity are, for all intents and purposes, always acting on objects, this must not be the case.
stevek: " or that the current force of gravity does nothing to sustain the motion / Which one is it?"
Motion involves velocity and direction. Gravity affects motion in relation to these two things.
So, any changes in motion (related to gravity) depend on velocity, direction, and the relative location of all gravitational forces.
@Cal,
The First Way (from the OP): " But, ALL that IS moved, is moved by another."
If there is a single example of motion involving the application of force prior to the current reference frame (and that describes virtually all cases of motion), then the First Way fails on soundness.
Once again, the First Way is talking about the present tense. It has nothing to say about anything prior to what is happening now.
Even your partner agrees that we can talk about motion in the present without referring to the past:
Strawdusty:"--Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion."
QED
Cal: "Motion involves velocity and direction. Gravity affects motion in relation to these two things. So, any changes in motion (related to gravity) depend on velocity, direction, and the relative location of all gravitational forces."
If gravity affects motion in relation to velocity and direction, then gravity is affecting motion. That's my plain reading of what you said.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "If you are not willing to extend your thinking to the whole of what is known to exist then you lack the conceptual skills to analyze this problem."
" Perhaps English isn't your first language, but when SteveK says a caboose at rest, he is obviously meaning relative to the surface of the earth."
--Yes, that is a problem in a discussion about god, or do you suppose god is limited to the sorts of things that go on at the surface of the Earth?
" Asserting orbital motion as a response to "a caboose at rest" is asinine."
--Failing to account for motion throughout the universe when arguing for god is asinine.
" Very, very good. Note that these things are concurrent,"
--No, they all require time to take their action
" in that the effect cannot be sustained if the cause is removed."
--Removing a cause prior to the time delay inherent in its operation will cause that operation to fail. Removing a cause after the time delay inherent in its operation will have no effect on operations within that delay window.
You are confusing certain operations that have a small delay relative to human perception with no delay.
" Remove the fuel pump, the fuel will not flow."
--No. I you remove the fuel pump the engine will continue to run for a short time.
" Remove atmospheric pressure, air will not flow."
--The engine will still run for a short time with the air it already has.
"Remove combustion, the pistons will not move. ... Remove the traction motors, the wheels will not move. Remove the locomotive, the first car (and the rest) will not move."
--No, each of these things have actions "in the pipeline", as it were. Removal of each will not cause an instantaneous effect on the caboose.
" This is what makes something an essentially ordered series - the effect is dependent upon a sustaining cause."
--You have made a false distinction based on the resolution of your perception and your thinking. When you learn to think more accurately you will find you are making a quantitative, not qualitative distinction.
Stardusty: "Where did the fuel come from? How did the locomotive get manufactured? Where did the electromagnetic radiation to grow the plants that made the fuel come from? Where did the sun come from? Where did our galaxy come from? Where did our big bang come from?"
" The source of the fuel can be erased, and the fuel will still exist."
--Only for a period of time. If you remove half the fuel from the tank the remaining half will last about half the time. If you block the fuel at the tank the engine will run for a short time with the fuel in the line. If you block the fuel at the pump the injectors will cause the engine to run for perhaps a second.
" The manufacturing facility for the locomotive can be dismantled, and the locomotive will still exist. The source of the electromagnetic radiation can be removed, and the fuel that exists will still exist. The source of the sun could be gone and the sun will still exist. Same with the galaxy. Same with the Big Bang. "
--Your choice of time is arbitrary.
An infinity of 10^20 seconds
equals
An infinity of 10^-20 seconds
"Those are effects that do not depend upon the cause to continue. These things are not part of an essentially ordered series, and thus they are not the subject of the First Way."
--A series is a series. Your thinking suffers from the same defects as Aquinas. If you remove a cause after the cause then the effect is not changed. If you remove a cause before the effect then you have not really removed the cause except as in your thinking, rather, you have changed the situation to prevent the cause and effect from ever happening.
When you learn to think more accurately you will avoid the mistakes of Aquinas.
June 30, 2017 12:32 PM
LoL "Those are effects that do not depend upon the cause to continue. These things are not part of an essentially ordered series, and thus they are not the subject of the First Way."
SP --A series is a series. Your thinking suffers from the same defects as Aquinas. If you remove a cause after the cause then the effect is not changed. If you remove a cause before the effect then you have not really removed the cause except as in your thinking, rather, you have changed the situation to prevent the cause and effect from ever happening.
When you learn to think more accurately you will avoid the mistakes of Aquinas.
Please note that I was speaking in the vernacular of ancient ignorance that personifies a things as being a "cause".
Cause and effect is a mutual interaction process. If you remove an object that was previously interacting with some other object in a causal interaction in the past then that past causal action will not be undone.
If you remove an object prior to it interacting with another object then no causal interaction between those object occurs.
Human beings tend to assign the title of "cause" to objects. So perhaps in this sense the fuel in the tank is thought of as a "cause". Or perhaps somebody imagines the fuel as a whole collection is causing the engine to run.
In truth individual molecules of fuel are in the tank, then each individual molecule is in the pump, then each is in the fuel line, then each is in the injectors, then each is in the cylinder, then they oxidize, then the atoms in the fuel recombine with atoms from the air and begin to move very rapidly on average pushing against the piston, then each moves out of the cylinder, then each goes through the exhaust system, then each enters the atmosphere and on and on and on.
The notion of an essentially ordered series is a human contrivance intended to analyze and make sense of the way things work. It allows human beings to function on some levels. As an analytical tool in a modern discussion of causality it is irrelevant.
Whatever your abhorrence to logical notation may be the fact is it is used broadly in analyzing the validity of an argument, despite the pitfalls of translating from English to logical notation.
4b therefore 4a therefore 4
4 therefore 4b (slightly reworded in 5)
U therefore ~~U therefore ~I
~I therefore U
Begging the question.
4b is logically prior to 4a
4a is logically prior to 4
5 is equivalent to 4b
Begging the question.
All your imaginations about cause and effect in zero time will not change the glaring logical invalidity of this section of the First Way.
June 30, 2017 5:03 PM
In order for the Time Delay complaint or the Inertia complaint to succeed in undoing the FW, you must show that one or more of the statements in 2a-2f is false per TD or Inertia. I'll list them here with my comments in parenthesis.
a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency[9] to that towards which it is moved. (obvious to me. Nothing can move unless it has the inherent potential to move)
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act.[10] (obvious. It must be in a
realized state of actuality)
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act.
d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is[11] in act. (obvious to me. only realized things can interact)
e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in act and in potency in the same sense, but only in a different sense. (obvious to me. The same thing can't be potentially moving per (c) and actually moving per (c) in the same sense)
f. It is therefore impossible that, in the same way and same sense, a thing is moving and is moved,[12] or in other words, that it moves itself. (This would have to be false for your case to succeed. Can you show that?)
g. It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another.
SteveK said...
" g. It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another."
June 30, 2017 6:32 PM
" Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
So, when Aquinas begs the question he gets to a first mover in 5, which is what he started with in 4b.
This first mover obviously must have acted to impart its first motion in the far distant past, since all causation takes time, and things have obviously been moving each other for a very long time.
How anybody of any significant intelligence could argue that the first mover acted in this instant is truly baffling. Apparently there is some sort of theistic notion that everything in the universe is locked into a ridged mechanism such that cause and effect occur in a zero time chain of events in the present instant with god as the first term in this series. How utterly bizarre.
But as for your point, Steve, how does your g. relate to the asserted first mover of Haines's 5?
Was the first mover always moving? That would not be a violation of "put in motion by no other"
Was the first mover stationary, and them begin to move? Again, that would not be a violation of "put in motion by no other".
Has the first mover always been and remains motionless? Once again, that would not be a violation of "put in motion by no other".
Of course, all 3 choices lead to other irrationalities for other reasons, I'm just wondering which irrationality you prefer.
One step at a time. I don't see an answer to my question, Dusty. Which statement(s) from 2a-2f are disproven by inertia or time delay?
@Strawdusty,
4b therefore 4a therefore 4
4 therefore 4b (slightly reworded in 5)
U therefore ~~U therefore ~I
~I therefore U
Begging the question.
4b is logically prior to 4a
4a is logically prior to 4
5 is equivalent to 4b
Begging the question.
Earth to Strawdusty: We can all read your responses to SteveK, Legion and bmiller.
So we all can tell when your answers are inconsistent when addressing the same subject.
Sorry to break it to you.
SteveK said...
" One step at a time. I don't see an answer to my question, Dusty. Which statement(s) from 2a-2f are disproven by inertia or time delay?"
--All of them that are interpreted individually or in combination to mean any of these items:
1. The first mover acts in zero time in the present instant.
2. The first mover did not act in the distant past to impart the first motion.
3. Motion is not self sustaining.
4. Motion requires a sustaining cause.
June 30, 2017 8:58 PM
bmiller said...
" Earth to Strawdusty: We can all read your responses to SteveK, Legion and bmiller.
So we all can tell when your answers are inconsistent when addressing the same subject."
If you would be so kind as to point out very specifically where and how exactly I have supposedly contradicted myself I will be forever indebted to you for the favor.
June 30, 2017 9:01 PM
Cal: "If there is a single example of motion involving the application of force prior to the current reference frame (and that describes virtually all cases of motion), then the First Way fails on soundness."
No, because that would be accidentally ordered, and thus not the subject of the First Way. Since simple observation demonstrates the existence of essentially ordered series, the only way to avoid a first mover is to either demonstrate how an infinite series of movers can be in operation together, or to offer a third option.
Cal: "or"
You left out the third and correct option - I understand inertia, and I also understand that what occurred in the past is irrelevant as to whether a motion can be sustained now without being moved by something else, like a caboose rolling over the ground. That the motion began in the past is utterly irrelevant to whether the caboose can sustain its motion without the engine pulling the train (it cannot, due to friction), and thus it is utterly irrelevant to the subject of the First Way.
Thus, you gave a false dilemma, which is not good argumentation. And I have demonstrated at length that I understand inertia, so you do yourself no favors continuously making that baseless accusation.
Stardusty: "Yes, that is a problem in a discussion about god [sic], or do you suppose god [sic] is limited to the sorts of things that go on at the surface of the Earth?"
I honestly have no idea how you could possibly conclude discussing a train on the ground is somehow problematic in the manner you are approaching it from, which is a very irrelevant manner.
Stardusty: "No, they all require time to take their action"
Haha I am getting a kick out of you and Cal thinking you are refuting us, when you are either missing or intentionally dodging the point. Concurrent in the series means that if the mover is taken away, the moved will not be able to sustain its motion. It does not require some sort of ridiculous instantaneous cessation of motion or some bizarre timeless event like you two are strawmanning.
Stardusty: "Removing a cause after the time delay inherent in its operation will have no effect on operations within that delay window."
And this defeats the First Way or refutes my point how...?
Stardusty: "You are confusing certain operations that have a small delay relative to human perception with no delay."
That's incredible, since I am not doing that and have never done that.
Stardusty: "I you remove the fuel pump the engine will continue to run for a short time."
And then will stop, much like I said.
Stardusty: "The engine will still run for a short time with the air it already has."
And then will stop, much like I said.
Stardusty: "Removal of each will not cause an instantaneous effect on the caboose."
Thank you for refuting something I never said. However, very quickly the motion in question will begin tapering off, in some cases so quickly that we could not even perceive the instant in which the motion continued. Which is in accordance with what I have said.
Stardusty: "When you learn to think more accurately you will find you are making a quantitative, not qualitative distinction."
When you learn to think more accurately you will begin addressing my actual points and won't hide behind strawman arguments.
Stardusty: "Only for a period of time"
Yes...?
Stardusty: "If you remove a cause after the cause then the effect is not changed. If you remove a cause before the effect then you have not really removed the cause except as in your thinking, rather, you have changed the situation to prevent the cause and effect from ever happening."
Neither of these is an essentially ordered series, which you have yet to demonstrate is invalid. When you learn to think more accurately you will be able to address the actual topic.
Stardusty,
I did not respond to your second post to me because none of it is relevant until you get to the notation.
1. A series of things being moved by things being moved can either be infinite or it cannot, and the argument proposed it cannot.
2. If the series was infinite, there would logically be no source of motion for the series.
3. If there is no source of motion for the series, there would be no motion in the series.
4. This is because things getting moved by things getting moved can only move to the extent that the source of motion in the series is moving them. A staff being moved by a hand illustrates this point.
5. Therefore there must be a source of motion for things that are being moved by things that are being moved, and this source can't be getting moved by something else or else the problem remains.
There is no begging the question.
Me: "If there is a single example of motion involving the application of force prior to the current reference frame (and that describes virtually all cases of motion), then the First Way fails on soundness."
Legion: "No, because that would be accidentally ordered, and thus not the subject of the First Way. Since simple observation demonstrates the existence of essentially ordered series, the only way to avoid a first mover is to either demonstrate how an infinite series of movers can be in operation together, or to offer a third option."
It's weird you would think this is an objection; if some things that move are not caused to move by another, then there is no need for a first mover.
It's also incompatible with the plain text of the argument itself -- some things move, AND ALL things that move are moved by another.
@Cal
>> "It's also incompatible with the plain text of the argument itself -- some things move, AND ALL things that move are moved by another."
If it's incompatible you should be able to identify the incompatibility. I asked you to tell us which statement in 2a-2f is false. If you cannot find a false statement then then 2g is true. This is how good argumentation works.
Dusty
>> "All of them that are interpreted individually or in combination to mean any of these items:
So which 2a-2f statement is false, if any? The only hope you have of refuting an argument is to identify a false statement.
@Cal
>> "It's weird you would think this is an objection; if some things that move are not caused to move by another, then there is no need for a first mover."
Please comment on what I said in response to your comment on gravity acting in the current reference frame.
Me: "If gravity affects motion in relation to velocity and direction, then gravity is affecting motion. That's my plain reading of what you said."
Dusty
This trivia question isn't relevant to the debate we are having, but I'm curious to know your answer.
A solid steel rod in space 2 light years in length is moved by Joe Astronaut pushing one end of the rod continuously at a speed of 1 m/s.
a)How much time passes before the other end begins to move?
b)During that time delay, is the rod being deformed? By how much?
SteveK said...
Dusty
This trivia question isn't relevant to the debate we are having, but I'm curious to know your answer.
" A solid steel rod in space 2 light years in length is moved by Joe Astronaut pushing one end of the rod continuously at a speed of 1 m/s."
--It will break
" a)How much time passes before the other end begins to move?"
--Assuming it didn't break that depends on the compressiblity of the material.
" b)During that time delay, is the rod being deformed? By how much?"
--Yes, ask a mechanical engineer to model it for you and you can get a fairly close answer.
July 01, 2017 7:46 AM
@Strawdusty,
bmiller said...
" Earth to Strawdusty: We can all read your responses to SteveK, Legion and bmiller.
So we all can tell when your answers are inconsistent when addressing the same subject."
If you would be so kind as to point out very specifically where and how exactly I have supposedly contradicted myself I will be forever indebted to you for the favor.
I pointed out you were inconsistent in when responding to each of us, as if you thought none of us could see your responses to the others. Specifically regarding your changing charge of "begging the question" in the exchanges listed below.
Strawdusty to SteveK:
"4a therefore 4
4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a)
...
Begging the question.
"
June 28, 2017 9:36 PM
bmiller to Strawdusty:
There is no question begging: first mover ≠ first mover put in motion by no other
June 30, 2017 7:50 AM
Strawdusty to bmiller:
bmiller said...
" 4 refers to the first mover being necessary for an essentially ordered series to be in motion. "
--That is begging the question, the assumption that every real series of events must have a first member.
June 30, 2017 8:29 AM
Changing your "begging the question" assertion from 5 being a rewording of 4a to somehow 4 itself "begging the question"
Strawdusty to Legion:
4b therefore 4a therefore 4
4 therefore 4b (slightly reworded in 5)
June 30, 2017 5:45 PM:
Back to making disproven assertion to Legion rather than the new one you made up on June 30, 2017 8:29 AM.
SteveK said...
Dusty
>> "All of them that are interpreted individually or in combination to mean any of these items:
" So which 2a-2f statement is false, if any?"
--Asked and answered
" The only hope you have of refuting an argument is to identify a false statement."
--No, arguments are shown to be invalid or otherwise unsound by a variety of means. Singling out one false premise, such as in Haines's 5b, is just one method.
You tell me, which ones fit that interpretation? To me the language itself is ambiguous as to act meaning existence or something else, how a potential thing can be said to exist at all, and inspecific as to the sorts of things that cause other sorts of things. The language is mostly just useless, so you tell me how you interpret it.
July 01, 2017 7:18 AM
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty,
I did not respond to your second post to me because none of it is relevant until you get to the notation.
" 1. A series of things being moved by things being moved can either be infinite or it cannot, and the argument proposed it cannot."
--By circular reasoning, as I clearly demonstrated by several means.
July 01, 2017 4:30 AM
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
" 2. If the series was infinite, there would logically be no source of motion for the series."
--In that case motion is the natural state of existence and no first term is required.
July 01, 2017 4:30 AM
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
" 4. This is because things getting moved by things getting moved can only move to the extent that the source of motion in the series is moving them. A staff being moved by a hand illustrates this point."
--The staff continues to move, as motion does not require force to sustain it.
July 01, 2017 4:30 AM
Post a Comment