I see you interspersed a few of the date tags I provided with your straw men. Do you think that is some sort of argumentation?
You claim to be a mechanical engineer, unlikely on the evidence, but supposing your story is true, how have you held any job in your supposed field given your manifest inability to form a relevant argument?
What happens when you receive a specification or a statement of work? How do you perform a failure analysis and argue you have identified and corrected the root cause? How do you write your design verification report? How do you pull out the shalls and argue you have satisfied them?
In those instances the object is to demonstrate you have satisfied the requirements and to provide a rationale for each assertion.
A counter argument is much the same. 1. Read the argument carefully. 2. Identify which specific lines of reasoning you consider to be faulty. 3. Use specific quotes in context or accurate summations the author would agree with, and then show the specific manner in which the author's rationale is flawed. 4. Sum up showing the ways that the stepwise failure of the author's various points invalidates the author's conclusion.
Note: Casting out one liner strawmen is not a part of such a process.
>> Do you think that is some sort of argumentation?
It's my criticism of the various criticisms offered by the skeptics. My criticisms demonstrate that the skeptics have not put forward anything that succeeds in undermining the FW argument.
>> Read the argument carefully.
Cal said they are not arguments, they are criticisms. You've failed to understand that basic fact.
Cal: "One doesn't provide an "argument" that the an argument doesn't abide by the rules of good argument...One provides criticism"
>> then show the specific manner in which the author's rationale is flawed.
That's what my criticisms did. I took your lengthy criticisms and the lengthy criticisms we gave in response and boiled them down to short, easily digestible sentences.
If you want to read the details behind each one, go back and search the comments. It's all there.
stevek: "Cal said they are not arguments, they are criticisms. You've failed to understand that basic fact. Cal: "One doesn't provide an "argument" that the an argument doesn't abide by the rules of good argument...One provides criticism"
And (what a surprise!) you fail to quote me in full.
I wrote: "One doesn't provide an "argument" that the an argument doesn't abide by the rules of good argument. You fail to even understand that basic fact. One provides criticism -- criticism that shows how an argument fails to abide by the rules of good argument."
Do you see what you left off -- and do you see how your little bizarre side quips fail to do what valid criticism must do -- show how an argument fails to abide by the rules of good argument. All you've done is declare your inner thought process (a little embarrassingly, I might add) as if your befuddlement resembles a cogent response to the actual, detailed criticisms provided.
A response to an attempt that purports to show how an argument fails to abide by the rules of good argument, succeeds in neutralizing/defeating the attempt if the response can explain where the authors thinking goes wrong.
That's what our responses have done. They've explained where your criticisms go wrong, leaving them empty and powerless.
stevek: "A response to an attempt that purports to show how an argument fails to abide by the rules of good argument, succeeds in neutralizing/defeating the attempt if the response can explain where the authors thinking goes wrong. "
Which you didn't do. At all.
stevek: "That's what our responses have done. They've explained where your criticisms go wrong, leaving them empty and powerless."
What you've done resembles sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nah nah nah I can't hear you and so I've neutralized your criticism." That's exactly what it resembles.
Short replies work ONLY if they unfold consistently into their long forms (without contradiction). Your replies do not. Actually, your replies seem to show that you don't even understand the criticism -- which makes sense, because it's seemed throughout that you don't actually understand argument.
For instance, starting with your first response:
stevek: "[SteveK representing this criticism (below)*:] o) God must have moved when he changed his mind criticism ([stevek:]not an example of potency being reduced to act)"
If "potency being reduced to act" doesn't involve changing one's mind then "potency being reduced to act" fails to describe all change (motion). If minds can be in motion (change) by themselves, then all things that change are not moved by another. So, done. The argument fails to even get started, contradicting itself when it declares that "all that is moved is moved by another." Except minds, which can move things. So, nevermind.
Fail.
reason this fails is that it attempts to switch the argument from one in which the argument is consistent with reality (changing a mind is an example of change / motion) into one in which the argument is merely consistent with an arbitrary definition. Because the definition is arbitrary (
* begin original criticism (2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another. (5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved: Response- The speculated god would have to have "moved" (changed or altered or undergone some sort of process) in order to be a "mover". For example if this speculated god made a decision to “move” the substances of existence that decision itself was a “movement”. If this speculated god was motionless and then made a decision it “moved” itself. Even if no decision was made, if the speculated god was motionless and then “moved” in any sense it must have “moved” itself. Thus on a previously motionless god (5) is incompatible with (2).
Alternatively, on a god eternally in motion the following is violated: (4) But this cannot proceed to infinity:
In either case, Aquinas defeats his own argument through self-contradiction. * end original criticism
>> If minds can be in motion (change) by themselves, then all things that change are not moved by another.
Who said God's mind is in motion? That is a separate discussion and argument that Aquinas gets into elsewhere. My response was to simple point out that Dusty is wrong about God's mind being "reduced to act" when God changes his mind.
If the FW argument is valid, God's nature has no potential to be actualized - which means God's mind cannot possibly be an example of "change" per the definition that Aquinas states at the beginning.
Dusty's criticism only has power if you assume the FW argument is invalid. That's bad thinking. The criticism fails on the basis of begging the question.
"My response was to simple point out that Dusty is wrong about God's mind being "reduced to act"" --Apparently the Thomist defines "change" as a "reduction from potential to act".
I'm just speaking in the Thomistic vernacular for the sake of discussion.
" when God changes his mind." --You just said god changes his mind.
You just said god changes.
If change is defined as reduction to act then god had a reduction to act.
" If the FW argument is valid, God's nature has no potential to be actualized - which means God's mind cannot possibly be an example of "change" per the definition that Aquinas states at the beginning." --You just said god changes his mind, yet now you say he doesn't change his mind.
This is just such a typical example of muddled apologist thinking:
stevek: "Dusty's criticism only has power if you assume the FW argument is invalid."
Nope. Stardusty's criticism has power if it points out how the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. What you call an "assumption" is actually the determination that follows -- that the First Way is a bad argument, BECAUSE it fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
Stardusty: "That's bad thinking."
Actually, Stardusty's comments are largely a kind of tutorial on how think critically.
Stardusty: "The criticism fails on the basis of begging the question."
Begging the question is a violation of the rules of good argument. Apparently you have no idea what begging the question means, however, as Stardusty's criticism does not assume that the First Way is a bad argument -- it demonstrates how the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
" If the FW argument is valid, God's nature has no potential to be actualized - which means God's mind cannot possibly be an example of "change" per the definition that Aquinas states at the beginning." --You just said god changes his mind, yet now you say he doesn't change his mind.
Which is it?
This objection has been addressed multiple times and the quote below has been provided multiple times. It is from the link provided in the very first comment on this topic.
The First Way is an argument from the observed motion of material objects made out of parts. Per Aristotle the act/potency distinction applies to things made out of parts. So in the sense Aristotle uses to describe motion of material objects made of form and matter, God is unmoved since He is not a combination of form and matter. That does not mean that God is incapable of knowing, willing or loving.
[10] It is to be noted, however, that Plato, who held that every mover is moved [Phaedrus], understood the name motion in a wider sense than did Aristotle. For Aristotle understood motion strictly, according as it is the act of what exists in potency inasmuch as it is such. So understood, motion belongs only to divisible bodies, as it is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. According to Plato, however, that which moves itself is not a body. Plato understood by motion any given operation, so that to understand and to judge are a kind of motion. Aristotle likewise touches upon this manner of speaking in the De anima [III, 7]. Plato accordingly said that the first mover moves himself because he knows himself and wills or loves himself. In a way, this is not opposed to the reasons of Aristotle. There is no difference between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle.
--You just said god changes his mind, yet now you say he doesn't change his mind.
Which is it?
" This objection has been addressed multiple times and the quote below has been provided multiple times." --Nope, SteveK made these 2 statements " when God changes his mind." and then in the same post "God's mind cannot possibly be an example of "change""
So god, according to SteveK, both does and does not change his mind. God, according to SteveK, both does and does not change.
Have you heard of the principle of non-contradiction?
@Stardusty, if you start out with this understanding:
1. Apologists are INCAPABLE of considering that the First Way might be a bad argument
then the pathetic non sequiturs and failures to grasp the objections (according to the rules of good argument) all make some sense.
I mention this as explanation for the obvious disconnect between the criticisms of the First Way offered here and the responses offered by the apologists; apologists don't work from the ground up (using the rules of good argument) -- they only proceed from the unshakeable belief that the First Way must somehow a good argument, and THEN search for some response that they imagine addresses the real problems offered by the criticism.
For apologists, a BAD response answers a GOOD criticism.
With regard to the First Way, a BAD response is something written by a believer that FAILS to actually negate the criticism, but does acknowledge it. These BAD responses will always be accepted by apologists, and that is because they falsely believe that the First Way must be a good argument.
It's basically part of the mindset that prioritizes hierarchy, and that is why apologists inevitably fetishize past thinkers; by fetishizing the thoughts of past thinkers over the rational tools available to all modern thinkers, apologists believe they have gained respect and prestige in the group to which they want to belong, while binding themselves into a world in which they can't think for themselves.
That's the (obvious) subtext to these discussions. Still, I thought it might worth mentioning.
@Stardusty, if you start out with this understanding:
" 1. Apologists are INCAPABLE of considering that the First Way might be a bad argument" --Manifestly, among the small handful here, outwardly, that seems to be the case.
Another possibility is the odd enjoyment of being an obscurantist, evidenced by such techniques as intentionally dropping critical qualifiers to reverse the meaning of a statement so that the opposite can be rebutted.
Or as grod does, merely drop by from time to time to throw out some pointless critical anger, claim to be a mathematical physicist and thus know exactly how we atheists are all wrong, and then depart without ever providing any actual arguments or evidence for any of his claims.
Not all apologists are Thomists, for example W L Craig considers the Thomistic god "unintelligible", and takes the approach of asserting a cosmological first mover, as opposed to an ontological first mover as Haines, Feser, and others do.
Also, I have noticed, as I mentioned before, that when these apologists feel they are in an educator role they actually become somewhat reasonable (see the aftermath of July 02, 2017 2:20 PM), at least temporarily, but it wears off, they can't keep it up.
So, in some segments of their brains there is a capacity for reason, but is is an interesting fact that on certain subjects the rationality of the theist suffers a major breakdown or blockage.
Me: "With regard to the First Way, a BAD response is something written by a believer that FAILS to actually negate the criticism, but does acknowledge it. These BAD responses will always be accepted by apologists, and that is because they falsely believe that the First Way must be a good argument."
bmiller, repeating the pattern I had just previously explicated: "SteveK has stated that change in the sense of act/potency is not the same sense of God's knowing, willing, loving. So I see no contradiction."
@bmiller Yup. The word "change" is used differently in each instance. Dusty is referring to a reduction from potency to act, I am not. One is discussed in the FW argument, the other is not. Dusty's criticism is empty and powerless.
Me: "With regard to the First Way, a BAD response is something written by a believer that FAILS to actually negate the criticism, but does acknowledge it. These BAD responses will always be accepted by apologists, and that is because they falsely believe that the First Way must be a good argument."
Now stevek, repeating the pattern I had just recently explicated above: "Yup. The word "change" is used differently in each instance. Dusty is referring to a reduction from potency to act, I am not. One is discussed in the FW argument, the other is not. Dusty's criticism is empty and powerless."
It's really kind of weird to me how telling others your prediction of how it is they will fail still elicits the same failure from them. I would have guessed that the behavior would change slightly, if only to deny the implications of being trapped in a predictable and failed pattern.
An "essential" causal series, in the Aristotelian-Thomistic sense, has no physical realization. Under A-T thought in an "essential" series cause and effect are viewed as instrumental as well as concurrent, coincident, or simultaneous. Such concurrence is, in fact, a mere artifact of human perception lacking any actual existent realization.
Under A-T thought an "accidental" series is a temporal series wherein the cause is presently separated from the present effect and is no longer instrumental, although it can be essential in the common sense of the word “essential” but not in the A-T sense of the word “essential”. This concept of causality is also deeply flawed by human perceptual artifacts, but the basic idea that a series of causes and effects occur over time makes every real causal series an "accidental" series in that respect.
What would it mean for a cause to be concurrent, or simultaneous, with the effect? Humans tend to assign the title of cause to one object process and the title of effect to another object process. So, one might say that when the cue ball impacts the 8 ball the cue ball is the cause and the motion of the 8 ball is the effect. Under A-T thought this is considered "accidental" since it is a temporal process such that even if we got rid of the cue ball while the 8 ball was still rolling the 8 ball would continue rolling nevertheless.
If, on the other hand, one uses a stick to continuously push the cue ball along then under A-T thought this is considered an "essential" series because it is imagined that the continuation of rolling is assigned the title of effect, the stick is considered an instrument, and the human pushing the stick is considered a cause. In the A-T oriented brain it is imagined that the cause is thus concurrent with the effect.
Such A-T thought harkens back to centuries past when analysis of cause and effect were limited to simply watching ordinary objects and thinking about them. What was not appreciated in centuries past is that the continued motion of the 8 ball is not a single effect, nor is the human a single cause, rather, the human is composed of a vast collection of internal causal influences, on the order of some 10^27 atoms organized as some 10^13 cells, all engaged in an enormous set of continual temporal causal sequences.
Similarly, the motion of the cue ball is not only one effect, rather, the cue ball is just as much of an instrument as the stick, transmitting energy to the molecules of the air and the felt in an vast number of temporal causal sequences.
Let's examine one simplified causal series in this vast collection. A single oxygen molecule travels from the outside air, into a lung, through the tissue membrane, and into a red blood cell. That cell travels through the bloodstream to a muscle where in combination with an organic molecule it transfers a finite amount of energy, enough to move the hand a small increment, say, a nanometer. The stick then moves a nanometer, which in turn moves the cue ball a nanometer, which in turn bumps into several air molecules, accelerates those air molecules, and transfers that finite amount of energy into kinetic energy of those air molecules. It should be readily apparent that this causal series is temporal and in A-T terms "accidental".
Every so-called "essential" series is in fact "accidental" upon more thorough examination, being made up of a combination of a vast number of minute “accidental” temporal causal sequences. The assignment of title of cause and effect to whole systems of causes and effects is an approximation of analytical convenience that leads to qualitative analytical errors when the quantity of approximation reduces a vast number to just a few, without due awareness of the pitfalls of such approximations. The notion of an ongoing motion as an effect is an artifact of the human perception of what is thought of as the present, which is not really the present moment, rather, it is a model in the brain of recent past events and imagined near future events all internally represented as members of a temporally static concept of the present.
To what extent are cause and effect concurrent or simultaneous? From Newton's fluxions, to Russell’s objections to the infinitesimal, to the definition of calculus by use of limit expressions there is a long and controversial debate about the validity of the notion of an infinitesimal. The infinitesimal is perhaps loosely described as being infinity small yet not equal to zero. In calculus it is commonly thought to be what is represented by dx, or dy etc.
Simultaneity does not extend beyond the infinitesimal. Since a causal series is more than one event or a process over some finite time no series can be contained within the infinitesimal, since any 2 events a finite time apart can have their event time difference further divided into an arbitrarily large number of subdivisions.
Thus no causal series is simultaneous or concurrent. No causal series is "essential".
Now, it is argued with respect to A-T assertions of a causal series, such as Aquinas describes in his First Way, no attempt is being made to describe the cosmological origins of motion, since Aristotle held that the universe is eternal and motion is eternal, and Aquinas also asserted an eternal universe. It is imagined that the true necessity for a first mover is ontological in nature. That is, the A-T oriented brain imagines a need for an ongoing sustaining cause for both motion and material existence.
It is argued that such an ontological series is "essential" and cannot extend to infinity. In fact, on the modern sciences of motion and conservation of matter/energy there is no need for any ontological cause or ontological series at all, much less a consideration of an infinite such series to be rejected in favor of a finite series terminating in an imagined first mover.
On conservation of matter/energy to merely persist in existing is no change; therefore no change requires no changer.
On conservation of matter/energy to merely persist in existing is no motion; therefore no motion requires no mover.
On modern science of motion including inertia merely persisting in uniform motion is no change for the object in motion; therefore no change requires no changer.
On modern science the call for a choice between an infinite ontological series versus a finite ontological series in the present moment is a false dichotomy and utterly unnecessary. No sustaining cause is called for at all.
When things don’t change then things don’t change. Yes, I realize that is tautological, but that is my point. The Thomist demands an explanation for this tautology. His explanation is that when things don’t change an unchanged changer is continuously changing them to not change.
When things don’t change they continue as they are, it is plainly apparent.
Of course things do change in some respects, for example, acceleration, change in shape, and change in chemical arrangements. All such changes are necessarily temporal processes, calling for a temporal causal regress, and thus no ontological cause.
Thus, the very notion of an “essential” series is an error of human perceptual artifacts, while the call for an ontological causal agent or series is without rational merit, rendering the Thomistic worldview irreparably erroneous to its core, owing to the falsity of these foundational principles.
>> "SteveK, uhm, doesn't it ever get tiresome continually contradicting yourself?"
I'm clarifying my words. Only an idiot like yourself would continue to rely on his original misunderstanding once a clarifying comment has been offered. Rather than continue to be an idiot like yourself, ask questions.
@Strawdusty, " Why re-publish all your posts from Dr Feser's blog " --They are not all my posts, nor are they in any way specific or limited to any single blog. I am developing a number of examples, wordings, and arguments, all of which are mine to share in whatever arrangement I think is best.
"without my responses?" --Your responses are without rational merit and do not warrant re-posting.
Of course it's up to you to post whatever you want and share it with the world.
It's also your choice to ignore counter arguments without addressing them.
But it seems like duplication of effort to post almost the exact same stuff on 2 blogs at the least, and a shame that you didn't care to share the ongoing conversation with readers of this blog. Other's interested in "learning per se" could benefit.
If defenders of the First Way did such a thing, I'm pretty sure they would be accused of dishonesty by some.
@bmiller I've never encountered anyone who claims that cause/effect are not simultaneous. That means a cause produces no effect. None. Zero. Nada. If there is no simultaneous effect, why does one appear later, much later or not at all? At T=0, the cause is literally doing nothing so why is there any effect? Makes no sense.
stevek: "I've never encountered anyone who claims that cause/effect are not simultaneous."
When you hang out with apologists, and have never taken basic science courses, and for some reason feel compelled to lie about your expertise (laughably claiming that you are a mechanical engineer, which is irreconcilable with your comments, including your last one), then it's no wonder you live in such a sadly ignorant and confused state.
stevek: "At T=0, the cause is literally doing nothing so why is there any effect? Makes no sense."
A single reference frame alone gives no information whatsoever regarding motion. Single reference frames, by definition, do nothing.
Ignorance, plus deceit, plus stupidity. The magical soup from which apologists emerge.
I agree motion occurs over time. If there is no effect occurring at T=0 or T=1 or at any time T=n then what causes the motion over the timeframe T0 to T=n? That's the part I don't understand.
stevek: "Said another way, if all single timeframes "do nothing" (your words) then how do several "nothings " produce something?"
Because a single reference frame provides no information regarding motion. Two or more reference frames could provide information about motion (assuming there is a difference between the two frames).
Doing = motion. Motion = more than one reference frame. Reference frames aren't themselves in motion -- they are the points between which motion occurs.
It's endlessly funny how you seem to think that rudimentary knowledge like t his should be regarded as a mysterious trap that's waiting to somehow turn on you in an unexpected way. Which, if you're an apologist, I suppose it probably is.
I've never encountered anyone who claims that cause/effect are not simultaneous.
I suspect that if you had claimed they *weren't* simultaneous according the First Way you would have been ridiculed for that position.
After all, we've been told that water doesn't really freeze, inanimate objects move themselves (or nothing moves them or that nothing moves period), that present tense NECESSARILY involves the past and so on. Not many people would choose to go down with the ship based on these positions.
I am interested in how people come to think the things they think and say the things they say. This has been pretty entertaining for me.
The thing is, that an essentially ordered series does not rely on the concept of simultaneity, but instead on the instrumentality of the inert members of the series being moved by the first mover.
The hand stick stone illustration is meant to demonstrate that the stick, being powerless to move anything on it's own, is only instrumental in moving the stone. In the illustration, it is the hand that is responsible for the movement of the stick and stone. We've seem this also in the train free body diagram.
Both illustrations are to show that as long as the force is active, the instrumental elements of the series stay in motion regardless if that time is long or short.
The only reason to stress that it relates to motion in the present tense is to distinguish it from an accidentally ordered series, the stock example being the grandfather being responsible for the father being responsible for the son. In an essentially ordered series like the hand-stick-stone series, only the hand has the power to cause change. In an accidentally ordered series, each member has the power to cause change independently. So the grandfather does not need to be present for the father to beget the son since the father has the power independent of the grandfather.
You all should follow the link to Dr Feser's blog and follow Strawdusty and I over there.
Highlights: 17:00 motion 19:00 potential / actuality 20:00-26:50 do things change? Parmenides- act/potency as an answer 26:50 Series distinction discussion starts 28:30 accidentally ordered = not essential 30 hand stick stone essentially ordered series- instrumental members except for 1. 31:40 Members if accidentally ordered series have causal power independently of other members of the series 33:00 Members of essentially ordered series have causal power only instrumentally derived ultimately due to the first member. 34:30 First Way discussion in depth- regarding muscles, nerves, atoms etc 37:00 Caboose being pulled by car being pulled by car etc finally needing the engine. 39:00 Examination of motion level by level, from macro to micro 41:00 Conclusion resulting in Unmoved Mover 42:00 Deductions derived from the conclusion
" If there is no effect occurring at T=0 or T=1 or at any time T=n then what causes the motion over the timeframe T0 to T=n? That's the part I don't understand." --I think you raise a very important point the does indeed call for a very careful explanation and justification.
Simultaneity is intuitive and seems to align with our ordinary experiences. Since I am making the counter intuitive claim I accept the burden of showing how this intuition, an intuition I experience as well, is erroneous.
One way of putting the answer is to say that simultaneity does not extend beyond the concept of the infinitesimal. I hesitate to raise the concept of the infinitesimal because the very notion has been considered dubious since Newton's fluxions to this day. Russell objected very strongly to the very idea and instead insisted on defining calculus in terms of a limit function, which I greatly prefer. But, I honestly have not found the words to describe simultaneity in terms of a limit function so I will lean on the old pedagogical crutch Russell so deplored and cite the concept of the infinitesimal.
Indeed, SteveK, nothing can happen in precisely 0 time, whether that time is called t=0 or t=1 or whatever.
Consider a collision over 1 second. We can describe the net energy transfer over that second, so far no problem, and our intuition tells us cause and effect were simultaneous over that 1 second.
But suppose we divide that time into .5 second and .5 second. If half the energy is transferred in the first half second, and half in the second half now we find that the first half is not simultaneous with the second half. The first half is over and in the past during the second half.
You can easily see that there is no upper bound on the number of divisions one can make, thus leading to the notion of the infinitesimal. Everything outside of the infinitesimal is not simultaneous.
The word "simultaneous" means "at the same time". If 2 events are at the same time then t1 - t2 = 0. However, as you correctly point out, nothing can happen in precisely 0 time.
This is, in my view, a very profound philosophical question, which has in fact been seriously debated for centuries.
However, even though we may question the meaning of the concept of the infinitesimal, it is clear that the Thomistic view of simultaneity is flatly false. The examples of simultaneity commonly provided are demonstrably not simultaneous. Ordinary technological instruments such as high speed video recordings and other means of measuring small periods of time prove conclusively that none of the examples purported by Thomists to be simultaneous are in fact simultaneous.
Therefore, every real observed causal series is demonstrably temporal, and thus "accidental". All examples of a supposed real "essential" series are measurably and provably false.
" Time is infinitely divisible. In the limit, as T1-T0 approaches zero the effect is said to be simultaneous with the cause." --Perhaps in that case the answer will turn out to be that time is quantized. This issue is, of course, by no means settled. But if time is quantized that could be a solution to the riddle of the infinitesimal time.
Dusty A time delay doesn't demonstrate the FW false. The FW never discusses time, it discusses reducing potency to act. You claim that no essentially ordered series exist, yet the hand/stick/rock example is exactly that and so is a forging press.
" A time delay doesn't demonstrate the FW false. The FW never discusses time," --It proposes a causal series and every causal series is a process over time. If the First Way depends on a causal series that is simultaneous, a so called "essential" series, then the First Way is demonstrably and provably wrong.
" it discusses reducing potency to act. You claim that no essentially ordered series exist, yet the hand/stick/rock example is exactly that and so is a forging press." --Consider a forging press.
Imagine a high speed video as the hammer (upper die) contacts the red hot steel blank. Each microsecond the soft hot metal is deformed slightly. In the next microsecond another deformation occurs that is not simultaneous with the first, and so on, microsecond by microsecond.
What is "the" effect?
You, and I, and presumably everybody, form a model in our brain of the recent past and the immediately foreseeable future and perceive this as "the present". This is an artifact of human perception, not a true representation of this present moment.
From a human perspective "the" effect is that the blank is stamped, or that there is a process of stamping the blank. Thus the individual assigns a single title of "the" effect to what is demonstrably and measurably a temporal series of separate events.
Each microsecond that passes has a microsecond's worth of motor rotation, hammer travel, and blank deformation. If the process were suddenly halted, say by a machine jam, those effects would not disappear from having occurred, the blank would have the amount of deformation that happened up to the time of the jam, and the other effects simply would not happen at no actual causal loss because they were only imagined to occur in the future.
The notion that the forging of an object from a blank is a single effect is demonstrably and provably false. It only seems that way to an individual owing to our lack of temporal resolution of observation and the way humans build models of recent events to perceive "the present".
The forging of an object from a blank is measurably and provably a long series of "accidental" causes and effects, necessarily a temporal process, and thus necessarily not an "essential" series.
Perhaps this will help explain how modern physics handles the concept of instantaneous speed and velocity. Spoiler alert...it is routinely used in physics and engineering and it involves cops and speeding cars ☺
bmiller: "Perhaps this will help explain how modern physics handles the concept of instantaneous speed and velocity. Spoiler alert...it is routinely used in physics and engineering and it involves cops and speeding cars"
You're an idiot.
Feynman: "That idea was to take an infinitesimal distance and the corresponding infinitesimal time, form the ratio, and watch what happens to that ratio as the time that we use gets smaller and smaller and smaller."
Infinitesimal does not mean none. Infinitesimal time and distance NECESSARILY involve two points (albeit very small ones).
You have confused the strategy of calculus (involving smaller and smaller slices) to imply that those segments diminish to zero; they do not, the slices merely diminish to infinitesimally smaller segments that allow for precision when calculating a speed at a given point -- by involving points at infinitesimally small distances around that point.
Infinitesimally small ≠ zero
That is your mistake.
On the plus side, you found Feynman. It just seems like you don't understand him even a little. Which is almost a hard thing to do (he's that awesome).
You have confused the strategy of calculus (involving smaller and smaller slices) to imply that those segments diminish to zero;
You will not find anywhere where I implied that time goes to zero in the discussion of instantaneous velocity. That misunderstanding belongs to Strawdusty and you. Oh and Zeno.
I did mention that calculus is a required course for college level physics and that is in order to understand this concept.
bmiller: "You will not find anywhere where I implied that time goes to zero in the discussion of instantaneous velocity."
Of course, you're just a sad little liar. Here's an uninterrupted exchange between you and Stardusty:
bmiller: " Instantaneous velocity is a well known concept in physics." Stardusty: “—Yes, it is a concept, but in what sense does a thing move in zero time?” bmiller: “Physicists and engineers routinely calculate instantaneous velocity. It appears that this comes as a surprise to you. If you cannot understand this, you can't fathom the motion discussed in First Way.”
Don't apologists realize that lying is a kind of ignorance, and that those who lie regularly inevitably reveal themselves to be such stunted thinkers?
bmiller: " Instantaneous velocity is a well known concept in physics." Stardusty: “—Yes, it is a concept, but in what sense does a thing move in zero time?” bmiller: “Physicists and engineers routinely calculate instantaneous velocity. It appears that this comes as a surprise to you. If you cannot understand this, you can't fathom the motion discussed in First Way.”
As I said. Zero time is Strawdusty's concept, not mine. As you can plainly see, I disagreed with him.
And btw, the quote you selected came after this one with a link to the Khan Academy video which if one watched it (and understood it) would not have asked such a zero time question in the first place.
@Atheist Gentlemen,
Instantaneous velocity is a well known concept in physics. It seems that you are unaware of this fact. Here is a video explaining instantaneous velocity. It helps if one understands calculus but at the 3:30 mark it shows the concept with some non-calculus examples.
bmiller: "As I said. Zero time is Strawdusty's concept, not mine."
Nope. You were the one making an argument for "instantaneous" motion. Motion in zero time is what Stardusty called YOUR concept, the one that you were trying to argue for -- motion in a single instant. Back when you were trying to figure out how to save the First Way from the requirement that if it were to describe motion, it NECESSARILY involves going back in time. Nothing you've pointed to (not a Khan Academy video, not Feynman, contradicts this, nor supports your contention.) Or did you forget that you have been trying to defend the First Way, and the long discredited notion of an essential series, in which you raised the idea of instantaneous motion (motion in one reference frame) in which one could talk about motion in the present without NECESSARILY going back in time.
bmiller: "As you can plainly see, I disagreed with him."
No. You tried to make an argument for motion in zero (instantaneous) time. Stardusty (and I) asked how you would make sense of this concept.
You seem to think that our identifying your problem (incoherence concerning time and it's need for two reference frames) means that we were arguing FOR your problem -- the one in which you tried to invent the idea of instantaneous motion in which "now" is the current reference frame, pretending that any motion described in reference to the current reference doesn't NECESSARILY reference a prior frame.
Motion in zero time is what Stardusty called YOUR concept,
I never had that concept and if Strawdusty or you attributed it to me you are simply wrong.
I used the well known concept of instantaneous velocity as used in physics to illustrate that motion could be spoken of in the present tense without referring to the ancient past.
The additional illustration of the tension in the coupling of each train car moving the next car illustrates (in the free body diagram) that the force and motion are simultaneous in that particular motion.
But as I've mentioned it is the instrumentality of the moving movers that is doing the work in the First Way, not the simultaneous action. Check out the video I linked above.
And BTW it is only you have been using the phrase "motion in one reference frame". There is a reason for that.
stevek: "It's hilarious to see Cal making a huge deal out of an irrelevant criticism. Infinitesimally small ≠ zero = irrelevant" bmiller: "Right and it is irrelevant in sooo many ways."
Infinitesimally small is a way of clarifying the fact that all discussion of the motion in the present NECESSARILY requires referring to a past frame (and back, and back, and back, with reference to a First Mover). So, your determination that the distinction is irrelevant displays, yet again, that you don't even understand the argument. Which makes sense, because you also fail to see it's numerous problems.
bmiller: "I never had that concept and if Strawdusty or you attributed it to me you are simply wrong."
You "had that concept" every time you refused (which I think you still do, unless you have changed your position) to admit that any discussion of time in the present refers, necessarily, to a past reference frame.
Your denial of this ramification is what's at issue, and your self-attestation about your own belief is immaterial -- your position entails what you say you deny you believe. Something's gotta give.
My position has always been that we can and do speak about things occurring in the present tense without reference to the ancient past. We all do, physics does and all the examples from physics texts did.
bmiller: "My position has always been that we can and do speak about things occurring in the present tense without reference to the ancient past."
Irrelevant. We are talking about the First Way, and physical reality. And any motion in the present NECESSARILY references a prior reference frame. And discussion about a First Mover precedes through all the relevant reference frames, which NECESSARILY takes us back billions of years.
Your denying this fact demonstrates that you do not sufficiently understand the argument, and your pretense to defending it is made laughable as a result. Reading comments like yours to Stardusty is like watching a caveman try to explain to an aeronautics engineer why a 747 can never fly.
bmiller: "We all do, physics does and all the examples from physics texts did."
You don't understand physics well enough to see how you are wrong -- about how reality works, what compromises language makes, and what approximations and concessions physical descriptions (like Calculus) make. It's actually pretty much all there in the Feynman article you linked to, but it seems to all be over your head.
>> And discussion about a First Mover precedes through all the relevant reference frames, which NECESSARILY takes us back billions of years.
Necessarily?? Given the infinite number of past reference frames that the First Mover could act, why must today's motion necessarily be traced back billions of years ago? Why can't the First Mover act in the first reference frame in the past?
stevek: "Why can't the First Mover act in the first reference frame in the past?"
Because then the FIRST mover wouldn't be the FIRST mover -- it would be a mover.
This is what I mean by this "discussion" being like listening to a caveman try and explain to an aeronautics engineer how a 747 cannot fly; you guys don't even understand the philosophical puzzle, nor basic physics, well enough to even discuss the topic, let alone defend an argument has so many flaws in addressing that puzzle.
stevek: "A new motion that starts today can't involve the First Mover - today? Where in the FW argument does it say that?"
I think you would benefit from trying to think your questions all the way through before asking them. I think you should be able to answer most of the questions you ask all by yourself if you just thought them through for awhile first.
bmiller: "My position has always been that we can and do speak about things occurring in the present tense without reference to the ancient past."
Irrelevant. We are talking about the First Way, and physical reality. And any motion in the present NECESSARILY references a prior reference frame. And discussion about a First Mover precedes through all the relevant reference frames, which NECESSARILY takes us back billions of years.
Yes, I realize that you think of think the Unmoved Mover of the First Way is about some mover in the distant past timewise. However, you are simply wrong.
The examples I gave are relevant to illustrate the sense of a primary mover used in the First Way. Let's use the hand-stick-stone for an example. The hand has not always been moving the stone. Indeed, it could not possibly move the stick unless it began to exist. I think you would agree that the man and his hand in the example have not existed for billions of years. Since the man, the hand, the stick or stone have not existed for billions of years, then that particular motion could not have reached into the ancient past.
None of the free body diagrams we looked at needed to discuss the ancient past to examine force force and motion. Neither did the Feynman article, nor does calculus. If you think they did, please show me where.
I suggest you watch the Feser video I linked. Also, Strawdusty and I have already engaged in a similar discussion at the link to Feser's blog. Why don't you read that first?
>> "If you con't grasp how motion in the present entails the past, then I can't help you."
I see you have problems understanding simple sentences.
For a motion that started sometime today, show where the FW argument necessarily leads to a First Mover billions of years ago rather than a First Mover much closer to when the motion started.
Mumbling about the past doesn't answer the question.
" For a motion that started sometime today, show where the FW argument necessarily leads to a First Mover billions of years ago rather than a First Mover much closer to when the motion started." --"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,"
Sometime today a leaf blew across the road. What moved the leaf? Air molecules, of course. What moved those air molecules? Previous motions of air molecules. And what caused those motions? Previous motions, of course.
Was there ever a time when everything was motionless? Not so long as Earth has had an atmosphere, no, it has always been in a process of highly complex and chaotic motion driven by solar radiation, the rotation of the Earth, the water cycle, and on and on.
Think about it SteveK, how would you arbitrarily stop this consideration of a causal regress, which is necessarily a temporal regress?
A-T to the rescue! They asserted one could not disprove an eternal universe. This solves the problem rather nicely. On A-T thought there need not be a temporal first mover, and the statement of Aquinas "But this cannot go on to infinity," is temporally flatly wrong.
Since every causal series is a temporal series Aquinas is flatly wrong and the First Way collapses under the plain language of the argument itself.
In this post I would like to take a different approach, in that previous posts focused on logical notation, identification of fallacies, and parsing of words into particular orders. Such analytical parsing seems to be natural, such as the work of Francisco Romero Carrasquillo http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html in developing notation, which is typical of how we go about analyzing an argument as to its validity.
Here, however, I will turn to the fundamental worldview of Aquinas, how his view was embedded into the language of the First Way, how aspects of that worldview have been demonstrated to be incorrect in whole or in part, and how the First Way is thus demonstrably unsound in light of modern understandings of natural existence.
In particular I will demonstrate that the Thomistic notion of an “essential” series is illusory, and the notion of an ontological or sustaining cause is both unnecessary and nonsensical.
A Few Definitions Under A-T thought in an "essential" series cause and effect are viewed as instrumental as well as concurrent, coincident, and simultaneous. Further, in such an “essential” series the cause is essential to the effect in the common usage meaning necessary as well.
An ontological cause, in this sense, is also essential in the sense of regarding the essence, or being. Thus, an ontological cause is a sustaining cause, a cause for the very existence in each moment of the object and of the effect, without which the effect would cease to exist and the object would cease to exist.
Under A-T thought an "accidental" series is a temporal series wherein the prior cause is presently separated from the prior effect and is no longer instrumental, although it can be essential in the common usage of the word “essential” but not in the A-T sense of the word “essential”. Since an “essential” or ontological cause is simultaneous with the effect it is not temporal, therefore every temporal causal series is an “accidental” causal series.
(cont.) On the Notion of Simultaneity What would it mean for a cause to be concurrent, or simultaneous, with the effect? Humans tend to assign the title of cause to one object process and the title of effect to another object process. So, one might say that when the cue ball impacts the 8 ball the cue ball is the cause and the motion of the 8 ball is the effect. Under A-T thought this is considered "accidental" since it is a temporal process such that even if we got rid of the cue ball while the 8 ball was still rolling the 8 ball would continue rolling nevertheless.
If, on the other hand, one uses a stick to continuously push the cue ball along then under A-T thought this is considered an "essential" series because it is imagined that the continuation of rolling is assigned the title of effect, the stick is considered an instrument, and the human pushing the stick is assigned the title of a cause. In the A-T oriented brain it is imagined that the cause is thus concurrent with the effect.
Such A-T thought harkens back to centuries past when analysis of cause and effect were limited to simply watching ordinary objects and thinking about them. What was not appreciated in centuries past is that the continued motion of the 8 ball is not a single effect, nor is the human a single cause, rather, the human is composed of a vast collection of internal causal influences, on the order of some 10^27 atoms organized as some 10^13 cells, all engaged in an enormous set of continual temporal causal sequences.
Similarly, the motion of the cue ball is not only one effect, rather, the cue ball is just as much of an instrument as the stick, transmitting energy to the molecules of the air and the felt in an vast number of temporal causal sequences.
Let's examine one simplified causal series in this vast collection. A single oxygen molecule travels from the outside air, into a lung, through the tissue membrane, and into a red blood cell. That cell travels through the bloodstream to a muscle where in combination with an organic molecule it transfers a finite amount of energy, enough to move the hand a small increment, say, a nanometer. The stick then moves a nanometer, which in turn moves the cue ball a nanometer, which in turn bumps into several air molecules, accelerates those air molecules, and transfers that finite amount of energy into kinetic energy of those air molecules. It should be readily apparent that this causal series is temporal and in A-T terms "accidental".
Every so-called "essential" series is in fact "accidental" upon more thorough examination, being made up of a combination of a vast number of minute “accidental” temporal causal sequences. The assignment of title of cause and effect to whole systems of causes and effects is an approximation of analytical convenience that leads to qualitative analytical errors when the quantity of approximation reduces a vast number to just a few, without due awareness of the pitfalls of such approximations. The notion of an ongoing motion as an effect is an artifact of the human perception of what is thought of as the present, which is not really the present moment, rather, it is a model in the brain of recent past events and imagined near future events all internally represented as members of a temporally static concept of the present.
(cont.) To what extent are cause and effect concurrent or simultaneous? From Newton's fluxions, to Russell’s objections to the infinitesimal, to the definition of calculus by use of limit expressions there is a long and controversial debate about the validity of the notion of an infinitesimal. The infinitesimal is perhaps loosely described as being infinity small yet not equal to zero. In calculus it is commonly thought to be what is represented by dx, or dy etc.
In the limit as t2 – t1 goes to 0 we find the only sense in which we can rationally speak of simultaneity, and this is sometimes referred to as the infinitesimal. Simultaneity cannot exist outside this limit or infinitesimal, since any time outside this limit is in the past and thus no longer simultaneous.
Since a causal series is more than one event or a process over some finite time no series can be contained within the limit or infinitesimal, since any 2 events a finite time apart can have their event time difference further divided into an arbitrarily large number of subdivisions, and therefore violate the very definition of what the limit or infinitesimal is.
Thus no causal series is simultaneous or concurrent. Therefore no causal series is "essential".
Persistence Absent a Changer Now, in spite of the necessity of a temporal regress the language of the First Way demands, it is argued with respect to A-T assertions of a causal series, such as Aquinas describes in his First Way, no attempt is being made to describe the cosmological origins of motion. It is imagined that the true necessity for a first mover is ontological in nature. That is, the A-T oriented brain imagines a need for an ongoing sustaining cause for both motion and material existence.
It is argued that such an ontological series is "essential" and cannot extend to infinity. In fact, on the modern sciences of motion and conservation of matter/energy there is no need for any ontological cause or ontological series at all, much less a consideration of an infinite such series to be rejected in favor of a finite series terminating in an imagined first mover.
On conservation of matter/energy to merely persist in existing is no change; therefore no change requires no changer.
On conservation of matter/energy to merely persist in existing is no motion; therefore no motion requires no mover.
On modern science of motion including inertia merely persisting in uniform motion is no change for the object in motion; therefore no change requires no changer.
On modern science the call for a choice between an infinite ontological series versus a finite ontological series in the present moment is a false dichotomy and unnecessary. No sustaining cause is called for at all.
When things don’t change then things don’t change. Yes, I realize that is tautological, but that is my point. The Thomist demands an explanation for this tautology. We see that persistence of matter/energy is no change, yet the Thomist asserts it would change if there were not something keeping it in existence, a changer that is itself unchanged. Since this is an asserted changer, the thing being changed is the very thing we observe to not be changing.
Thus the Thomistic explanation becomes that when things don’t change an unchanged changer is continuously changing them to not change.
Those who are not Thomists realize that when things don’t change they continue as they are.
(cont.) Of course things do change in some respects, for example, acceleration, change in shape, and change in chemical arrangements. All such changes are necessarily temporal processes, calling for a temporal causal regress, and thus no ontological cause.
Against Any Need for an Ontological Changer To show that an ontological first mover is unnecessary several conditions are addressed. 1. For objects merely persisting in existing there is no change and therefore no necessity for an ontological cause. 2. For objects in uniform motion there is no change therefore no necessity for an ontological cause. 3. For objects undergoing change all such changes are temporal and thus call for a temporal regress of causes, and therefore there is no necessity for an ontological cause.
In all instances there is no necessity for an ontological cause and therefore the First Way is negated.
Where Aquinas Goes Causally Wrong Having established that the very notion of a first mover for an “essential” series of causes and effects of motion is wrong, it is apparent that the First Way must be not only unsound, but profoundly erroneous to its core. But where does this argument break down specifically?
First, let’s consider the word “simultaneous”, which simply means “at the same time”. Thus, in a simultaneous series of cause and effect t1 – t2 = 0, and t2 – t3 = 0,…and t(n-1) – tn = 0. The time between the first cause and the last effect is precisely zero. In modern causality we know this is not the case. Causal influences propagate through space no faster than c, the speed of light in a vacuum. For moving objects causal influences propagate at much lower rates, the speed of the causal object, or the speed of the causal series such as the speed of sound in a particular medium, for example.
The very notion of an “essential” simultaneous series is false, in light of modern knowledge. There simply is no such thing as t1 – tn = 0.
A Local Example Allow me to give you a specific closed system example, one of many such available. Consider a tank of compressed Argon gas, which is a sealed steel bottle containing a finite number of Argon atoms.
Inside we find a mad chaos of motion, a crazy beehive of Argon atoms bouncing off each other and bouncing off the walls of the steel bottle. The pressure against the walls is accounted for by the sum of the impacts of these agitated atoms. This motion never stops, so long as the bottle remains sealed, further, the sum of this motion remains constant, as long as the temperature of the bottle remains constant.
Please identify in this bottle of compressed Argon 1. The “essential” series. 2. The first mover of this series.
Clearly, both 1 and 2 are illusory, and based on Aristotelian concepts of motion long ago shown to be erroneous. Here is a simplified description of the Argon atoms, “A”, and the sort of series they are in, necessarily a time sequence of events, not simultaneous. A1 moves A2 A2 later moves A3 … later moves An An later moves A1
If that series were a logical argument we would say it is circular. It is indeed a circular description. Simply put, all the atoms inside the bottle just keep bouncing off each other over time without end. On modern knowledge the reasons are that there is no such thing as friction at the atomic level, the natural state of matter is to continue moving as it is unless acted upon, and matter/energy are conserved.
(cont.) Now, the Thomist may object that this is a closed system, not representative of the universe as a whole. It remains to be seen whether or not the universe is a closed system, but irrespective, if there is to be an ontological first changer it must be acting in all places and at all times, including inside our Argon filled sealed bottle. Irrespective of how the gas was placed in the bottle many days ago, the ontological first mover must be moving all those atoms about and keeping them in existence. Yet no such necessity is in evidence. The Argon atoms simply continue to exist under conservation of matter/energy because there is no change to the total amount of matter/energy in the bottle, and therefore no necessity for a changer.
Thus, as an argument for an “essential” ontological series, the premise “But this cannot go on to infinity” is flatly false. Ontologically there simply is no series, since the very notion of any need for a sustaining cause is illusory on inertia and conservation of matter/energy.
Infinite Regress in Time Now, one may object that I have limited my discussion to a finite time, leaving open the question of how the motion of this whole system of motion came to be. Both Aristotle and Aquinas concluded that an eternal universe either was the case or at least could not be logically disproved, so even in this consideration there is no terminus since motion extends back into the past ad infinitum given the A-T notion of an eternal universe. Thus, in the case of a temporal regress interpretation premise 4 is also false.
In either case, moving objects bouncing off each other ad infinitum, or extending back in time infinitely, there is no call for an ontological mover at all, since the causal series for motion is temporal, not ontological.
Ontologically the premise “But this cannot go on to infinity,” is flatly false because there is no such thing as an ontological series, the very notion being illusory.
In my previous posts I showed a variety of argumentation defects of the First Way and the analysis provided above including 1.Affirming the consequent to state, “when Aquinas talks about movement he is talking about change, as can be seen from the definition that he gives of change (to move)” since he actually made the converse of your statement 2.Begging the question by arguing U -> ~~U -> ~I -> U. 3.Stating the manifestly false premise that U is what all consider to be God 4.That same premise “this is what all consider to be God” is also an ad hoc assertion, a non sequitur with respect to U, and a false dichotomy even if we grant U. 5.Aquinas fails to even argue that “a divine being exists” as you address in your opening paragraph at some length. Aquinas only states (falsely) “this is what all consider to be God”, which is a statement of mere human thinking, leaving the actual existence of a God as an implied non sequitur from mere human notions of God. 6.The notation of Francisco Romero Carrasquillo is crucially abbreviated, invalidly omitting “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;”, “and this everyone understands to be God”, and the implied assertion of the existence of god, without which the notation does not even attempt the purpose called out in your opening paragraph, to show “a divine being exists”.
Still, despite the many defects I have pointed out in previous posts and summarized in 1 through 6 above, those defects are potentially repairable with a more careful rewording of Aquinas, although the actual text of Aquinas will remain hopelessly invalid and otherwise unsound.
Thus, the very notion of an “essential” series is an error of human perceptual artifacts, while the call for an ontological causal agent or series is without rational merit, rendering the Thomistic worldview irreparably erroneous to its core, owing to the falsity of these foundational principles
Interested readers should click the link to Dr Feser's blog. There one will see the paragraphs addressed one by one pointing out the flaws of each of them.
To bad that Strawdusty did not honestly include my comments and address them. As a result his little piece is a series of blunders built on blunders.
bmiller: "To bad that Strawdusty did not honestly include my comments and address them. As a result his little piece is a series of blunders built on blunders."
caveman: "To [sic] bad that the aeronautical engineer didn't include my comments and address them before thinking he could launch such an outlandishly large thing into the sky..." Interrupted by 747 taking off in background.
@Stardusty -- I'm just finishing reading Orwell's 1984 for the first time. I can see why the book has been revered for so long. At one point, Orwell describes the ability of inner party members to not only pretend but to actually make themselves believe that black is white, war is peace, etc. Orwell called this "protective stupidity."
The similarities between the subject of Orwell's book and the behavior of apologists was what I have found most surprising and trenchant.
>> "Sometime today a leaf blew across the road. What moved the leaf? Air molecules, of course. What moved those air molecules? Previous motions of air molecules. And what caused those motions? Previous motions, of course."
This doesn't address Cal's claim about the FW argument. Let me know when you get to the part where the FW argues that the FIrst Mover necessarily acted billions of years ago but not today. The argument never discuss time so good luck with that.
I cannot wait to hear Dusty tell us the story of the big motion from billions of years ago that caused his hand to type out his last comment. It's naturalism's most popular fable.
>> "Irrespective of how the gas was placed in the bottle many days ago, the ontological first mover must be moving all those atoms about and keeping them in existence. Yet no such necessity is in evidence. The Argon atoms simply continue to exist under conservation of matter/energy because there is no change to the total amount of matter/energy in the bottle, and therefore no necessity for a changer."
Here Dusty first denies that something ontologically different is necessary because - wait for it - something ontological different (law of nature) acts to conserve matter/energy so that there is no change.
Dusty's Argon bottle analogy doesn't go into explaining what caused everything to change. If eternal matter in motion is like the Argon bottle then, taken as a whole, today should look no different than every time in history. We should see the Argon bottle situation throughout history. History doesn't look anything like that. It's changed a lot. That change requires something besides the Argon bottle in motion.
bmiller: "To bad that Strawdusty did not honestly include my comments and address them. As a result his little piece is a series of blunders built on blunders."
caveman: "To [sic] bad that the aeronautical engineer didn't include my comments and address them before thinking he could launch such an outlandishly large thing into the sky..." Interrupted by 747 taking off in background.
Well what a surprise. No rational argument offered by either atheists against rebuttals just simply ignoring them.
But my expectations have been set pretty low seeing that it took at least the last 8 months for at least one of them to realize that the First Way is not the Kalaam argument (even though that one still wants it to be the Kalaam argument).
I suspect it will take longer for any other fact to register.
Apologist: "Well what a surprise. No rational argument offered by either atheists against rebuttals just simply ignoring them."
What rebuttals? You've posted nothing that has rebutted the criticism offered here regarding the obvious ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. You remain a joke.
Apologist: "But my expectations have been set pretty low seeing that it took at least the last 8 months for at least one of them to realize that the First Way is not the Kalaam argument (even though that one still wants it to be the Kalaam argument)."
The inability of apologists here to grasp the fact that a First Mover argument NECESSARILY goes back into the past (including the very distant past) is an example of what George Orwell called "protective stupidity."
" Dusty's Argon bottle analogy doesn't go into explaining what caused everything to change." --Of course it does, you just did not read it and understand it.
" If eternal matter in motion is like the Argon bottle" --I said it was an example of a closed system and that the question of whether or not our universe is a closed system remains to be solved.
I can write it for you but I cannot read it for you and understand it for you.
" then, taken as a whole, today should look no different than every time in history." --The cosmological principle holds that things are basically the same everywhere.
" We should see the Argon bottle situation throughout history." --In an expanding universe the "bottle" expands over time.
"History doesn't look anything like that. It's changed a lot." --Right, change over time. That is a temporal process, not an ontological or sustaining cause.
" That change requires something besides the Argon bottle in motion." --Right, either a temporal first cause or an eternal universe with eternal motion.
" Interested readers should click the link to Dr Feser's blog. There one will see the paragraphs addressed one by one pointing out the flaws of each of them." --You took a couple irrational shots at a few points. Some were so garbled I did not bother to respond, others were wrong in other respects as I pointed out.
I posted a lengthy rebuttal to a Feser paper Billy linked to me. Nobody responded so my negation of Feser stands. His reasoning varies between irrelevant and false.
" To bad that Strawdusty did not honestly include my comments and address them. " --Why would I include your comments? Those are your words, not mine.
Some of your confused thinking you posted was addressed as I anticipated certain objections, both explicitly and implicitly. If you think you have some actual rational counter argument go ahead and post it. I have not been able to identify any of your words with merit beyond using them as examples of how many people typically make fundamental errors, as Feser repeatedly does and I demonstrated at length in response to Billy.
What rebuttals? You've posted nothing that has rebutted the criticism offered here regarding the obvious ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. You remain a joke.
You do know how to click on a link don't you? I guess not. Even Strawdusty can do that.
--Why would I include your comments? Those are your words, not mine.
Because it would occur to an honest person that including the objections that were presented during the course of the conversation would be relevant.
You didn't respond to them there, so I don't expect repeating them here will be any different.
However, I will repeat that among the many confusions you have, a predominate issue is that you reify motion/energy as if it was a thing that existed independently of existing things. At least one material thing must exist for there to be local motion at all. No thing, no motion. Or another way to put it is that you muddle the distinction between what a thing is and what it does.
Material things come into existence, exist and then pass out of existence. Motion is merely one of the things that material things do while in existence as a combination of form and matter. Whatever it is that sustains the material object in that combination is ultimately responsible for not only the existence of the thing, but also all the things that the object does including motion.
Cal: "The inability of apologists here to grasp the fact that a First Mover argument NECESSARILY goes back into the past (including the very distant past) is an example of what George Orwell called "protective stupidity."
I noticed you changed your statement to include "past" and "distant past. I take that distinction to mean that the FW doesn't necessary take you back billions of years - that it also takes you to other past moments, of which there are many. Good to see you correcting your mistakes.
" Material things come into existence, exist and then pass out of existence. " --Name some. Matter/energy is only rearranged, never created or destroyed.
"Motion is merely one of the things that material things do while in existence as a combination of form and matter." --Name some things that matter/energy does that does not require so called local motion.
stevek: "I noticed you changed your statement to include "past" and "distant past."
???????
I wrote something that is consistent with what I've been saying all along.
stevek: "I take that distinction to mean that the FW doesn't necessary take you back billions of years - that it also takes you to other past moments, of which there are many. Good to see you correcting your mistakes."
Stardusty: "Why would I include your comments? Those are your words, not mine." bmiller: "Because it would occur to an honest person that including the objections that were presented during the course of the conversation would be relevant."
I don't see why -- especially if the objections were irrelevant.
It's also very telling that you think that someone sharing their words is somehow dishonest, but when someone like stevek flagrantly lies ("I'm a mechanical engineer!") you are unable to discern as much or don't think it's remarkable.
bmiller: "You didn't respond to them there, so I don't expect repeating them here will be any different."
I suspect that your bleatings elsewhere are similar to your bleatings here; about as trenchant and on topic as that of a caveman who thinks he has something urgent to tell an aeronautical engineer about how a 747 cannot fly.
bmiller: "However, I will repeat that among the many confusions you have, a predominate issue is that you reify motion/energy as if it was a thing that existed independently of existing things. At least one material thing must exist for there to be local motion at all. No thing, no motion. Or another way to put it is that you muddle the distinction between what a thing is and what it does."
Hysterical. You've shown yourself to be a child, unschooled in physics, incapable of consistency, who doesn't know what dishonesty is. And you somehow think all this qualifies your thoughts as urgently worthy of some new consideration and respect.
bmiller: "Material things come into existence, exist and then pass out of existence. Motion is merely one of the things that material things do while in existence as a combination of form and matter. Whatever it is that sustains the material object in that combination is ultimately responsible for not only the existence of the thing, but also all the things that the object does including motion."
stevek: "I take that distinction to mean that the FW doesn't necessary take you back billions of years - that it also takes you to other past moments, of which there are many. Good to see you correcting your mistakes."
" This statement of yours appears incoherent." --SteveK has apparent difficulty with the notion of a regress.
If we write t1, t2, t3... this seems to trigger in SteveK a need or a desire to just arbitrarily stop the series at some time. It's like trying to imagine some number of dots at the same time, the brain only gets up to a small number. Mathmatics allows us to go far beyond that sort of cognitive limit, but SteveK just can't seem to make that progression.
SteveK, how much time is an infinity of "a few moments"?
If "a few moments" spanned 1 second how many such periods are in a billion years?
What is the qualitative difference between 1s, 1m, 1h, 1y and 1000000000y? Why would you arbitrarily stop your regression analysis at any particular past time?
As you are aware from the other blog, dogs and cats come into existence, exist and then pass away. Motion is something that dogs and cats do and would not exist at all if there was nothing that was a material thing that exists as a combination of form and matter.
--Name some things that matter/energy does that does not require so called local motion.
Change in a quality is not considered the same as local motion in Thomism, but of course your asking that particular question indicates that you either miss the point I was making or want to change the subject.
Matter and energy are abstractions and are unitelligble without reference to form. Kinetic energy...kinetic energy of what exactly? Matter...matter of what exactly?
>> "I wrote something that is consistent with what I've been saying all along."
I don't see where you made two distinct references to the past before - one distant, one not distant. Regardless, I'll take this as an unintended clarification and say that I agree with you.
>> SteveK, how much time is an infinity of "a few moments"?
An infinite amount of time. Why do you ask and what is the relevance to the FW? Don't tell me you think the FW necessarily takes you back to a particular moment in time?
bmiller said... " objections ... You didn't respond to them there,.. local motion ... Motion is merely one of the things that material things do ... that sustains the material object July 28, 2017 7:55 AM
Some Key Concepts 1.The notion of an “essential” series is illusory. 2.Simultineity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero (the infinitesimal). 3.No ontological first mover (sustaining cause) is necessary for persistence of matter/energy on the modern science of conservation of matter/energy. 4.No ontological first mover (sustaining cause) is necessary for persistence of motion on the modern science of conservation of matter/energy. 5. No ontological first mover (sustaining cause) is necessary for persistence of motion on the modern science of inertia. 6.All forms of change require so called “local motion”. 7.Every causal series is a temporal series. 8. No ontological first mover (sustaining cause) is necessary for change on the modern science of motion. 9.No temporal first mover is called for on the assertion of an eternal universe with eternal motion. 10.The assertion in the First Way of “But this cannot go on to infinity” versus “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover” is a false dichotomy because there simply is no “this” or “it” (ontological series or sustating cause) necessary. 11.The plain text reading of the series “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” with respect to “It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion” is a temporal regress. 12.The assertion “But this cannot go on to infinity” is false on the plain text temporal reading and an eternal universe with eternal motion. (to find the reasons for 1 through 12 above see the following) July 26, 2017 11:32 PM July 26, 2017 11:33 PM July 26, 2017 11:34 PM July 26, 2017 11:38 PM July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
SteveK said... " LOL. The stick in the hand/stick/rock series isn't essential. " July 28, 2017 5:32 PM
--See July 26, 2017 11:33 PM for an explanation of the illusion of an "essential" series of a human using a stick to push an object.
Such a series is temporal and in A-T terms "accidental". There is no such thing as an "essential" series, with the perception of any series as "essential" being an artifact of human observation limitations and shallow causal analysis.
The metal forms just the same with or without the hydraulic fluid in the forging press. Not essential at all. The ski gondola moves just the same with or without the metal cable. Not essential at all. The dirt pile moves just the same with or without the bulldozer. Not essential at all.
The only illusion I'm seeing is the illusion of your intelligence.
SteveK said... " The metal forms just the same with or without the hydraulic fluid in the forging press. Not essential at all. The ski gondola moves just the same with or without the metal cable. Not essential at all. The dirt pile moves just the same with or without the bulldozer. Not essential at all. " --The father is essential to the formation of the child as well.
The father, the oil, the cable, and the bulldozer are all essential in the common meaning of the word essential.
None are "essential" in the Thomistic sense of the word "essential". To learn why see July 26, 2017 11:32 PM starting with "Some Definitions". Since you claim to be a mechanical engineer the subsequent discussions of the limit function, the infinitesimal, simultaneity, and element analysis with be familiar to you and easy to grasp.
Me: "I wrote something that is consistent with what I've been saying all along." stevek: "I don't see where you made two distinct references to the past before - one distant, one not distant."
I've referred to a single reference frame just prior to the present, and I've referred to light from billions and billions of years ago, and I've referred to the big bang. The past is the past -- it's all just a matter of accepting certain facts of physics, and following that to the point where we reach a paradox in our understanding. You are so stupid you don't even realize what the paradox is.
You are so stupid that you think there is a clear distinction between the distant past (whatever that means) and a more recent past.
stevek: "Regardless, I'll take this as an unintended clarification and say that I agree with you."
You are so stupid that you think that your consistent misunderstandings of basic scientific principles is somehow due to my writing, when in fact it is a result of your moral cowardice and how it further stunts your mental abilities.
You are a liar, and this is something you know, but you somehow ignore or pretend otherwise.
>> "I've referred to a single reference frame just prior to the present, and I've referred to light from billions and billions of years ago, and I've referred to the big bang."
A motion of the kind that the FW describes can be caused by the First Mover a single reference frame prior to the motion starting. Agreed.
stevek: "A motion of the kind that the FW describes can be caused by the First Mover a single reference frame prior to the motion starting. Agreed."
I don't know who you think you're agreeing with.
All things have been in motion since the big bang; the "first" mover you posit is not, nor could be "first" in any sense that tries to align with the First Way.
You remain so stupid that you appear completely unaware of how stupid you are.
That you would imagine yourself somehow capable of partaking in this discussion, or any intellectual discussion for that matter, is constantly amazing to me.
>> "All things have been in motion since the big bang; the "first" mover you posit is not, nor could be "first" in any sense that tries to align with the First Way."
That forging press has not always been in motion. It's sitting idle right now. Same with that train and that ski gondola and that rock. If you are sitting down, you not in the motion of walking. Are you too stupid to realize this or just pretending to be stupid? Let me know which.
Will it be Cal that will tell us the fable of the big motion from billions of years ago that caused Cal to start the motion of walking and the forging press to start the motion of forging?
" That forging press has not always been in motion. It's sitting idle right now." --In motion. What you and I perceive as "sitting idle" is in motion.
Everything is in motion with respect to everything else, and always has been for as far back as we are able to observe, some 13 billion years.
" Same with that train and that ski gondola and that rock." --The same can be said in these cases as well, indeed.
" If you are sitting down, you not in the motion of walking." --But you are in motion. If you stop your major motions you have died, but even then the materials of your body continue to be in motion.
All these motions are analyzed using a temporal regress. All are "accidental", none are "essential" in the Thomistic senses of those quoted words (see July 26, 2017 11:32 PM for Thomistic defections).
stevek: "That forging press has not always been in motion."
The forging press is on a planet that spins. The planet is in orbit around a sun. The solar system is part of an expanding universe. The sub atomic parts of the press are in a constant state of motion.
This is all part of modern knowledge, and you appear ignorant of it. And you are so stupid that you cannot absorb this information. And your stupidity is likely a function not just of your limited cognitive abilities, but of the kind of moral depravity that permits you to believe that your lying, and excusing that lying, is not only permissible but to be condoned.
You are apologist. And apologists evince the worst in human behavior.
Cal, >> "The forging press is on a planet that spins. The planet is in orbit around a sun. The solar system is part of an expanding universe. The sub atomic parts of the press are in a constant state of motion."
The forging press is not FORGING. That is the motion I was referencing. You knew that but chose instead to list all the other ongoing motions.
You are a dishonest piece of human debris. You live up to the atheist stereotype.
Matter and energy are abstractions and are unitelligble without reference to form. Kinetic energy...kinetic energy of what exactly? Matter...matter of what exactly?
I wonder if I will see a relevant response.
Yes, I really think that these guys think that motion is an existent thing independent of material objects. For instance, the press that is being discussed could not possibly have been in motion in the distant past, because is did not exist in the distant past.
Add that confusion to the equivocation of the reference frame when discussing local motion, and the incoherence of their position is multiplied.
@bmiller >> "For instance, the press that is being discussed could not possibly have been in motion in the distant past, because is did not exist in the distant past."
Yup. That new motion starts every day at 8am when the factory opens (for example). That new motion is occurring now, today, and we can apply the logic of the FW to that new motion. Billions of years ago? I don't think so.
bmiller: "Yes, I really think that these guys think that motion is an existent thing independent of material objects."
This is hysterical; it's the apologists here who had tried to push the odd concept that change (motion) constitutes something more than a change in position.
So you have that exactly wrong. But your lie makes sense, because you are an apologist, and in apologist land, black is white, and 2+2 = 5.
bmiller: "For instance, the press that is being discussed could not possibly have been in motion in the distant past, because is did not exist in the distant past."
Mkay. By that logic the wood that is set to burn in the First Way couldn't possibly be burning, because it wasn't burning wood in the past.
If you can't apply consistency to your thinking, you have no hope of rational thought.
bmiller: "Add that confusion to the equivocation of the reference frame when discussing local motion, and the incoherence of their position is multiplied."
Ha. I don't think you know what equivocation means. But that makes sense because you are an apologist, and in apologist land, black is white, and 2+2 = 5.
It's not that you and stevek are just mistaken; you appear to be damaged people, incapable of rational thought. It's truly amazing how you both talk in a kind of flitting newspeak that keeps you in your state of protective stupidity.
It is pretty clear that you don't understand what I'm saying and I've come to expect that. I've decided to respond pretty much only to when you try to make a point other than whining, complaining or flinging insults.
This is the only thing I found that I could respond to.
Mkay. By that logic the wood that is set to burn in the First Way couldn't possibly be burning, because it wasn't burning wood in the past.
Again it is clear you missed my point. Try this: The burning wood in the First Way could not possibly be the continuation of some ancient motion because the wood in the First Way did not exist at one point in time. Things that don't exist do not burn. So the burning of that particular piece of wood from a particular tree could not possibly stretch back in ancient history, since the tree did not even begin to exist since maybe 100 years prior.
Can you re-read the statement you quoted and explain to me how understood it the way you did? I admit I mistyped "is did not exist". It should have read "it did not exist".
bmiller: "The burning wood in the First Way could not possibly be the continuation of some ancient motion because the wood in the First Way did not exist at one point in time."
Actually, everything that makes up the wood has existed since the beginning of time. What you identify now as burning wood has existed, in other forms, since the beginning of time. You can only deny this fact by hiding from reality. But that is what apologists do, so I expect you to continue to hide from this simple fact.
bmiller: "Things that don't exist do not burn."
Agreed.
bmiller: "So the burning of that particular piece of wood from a particular tree could not possibly stretch back in ancient history, since the tree did not even begin to exist since maybe 100 years prior."
Your choice of a tree from 100 years ago as being the beginning of the wood is arbitrary. Prior to that the material and energy that make up the tree inhabited other places and could have been identified with other things, but all of these identifications are arbitrary -- a tool of our subjectivity that helps us make useful sense of the world. You make the mistake of assuming that a thing that you identify (wood, a tree) is THE beginning, but it is not THE beginning for the complex relationships that are occurring all around us, and have been occurring since the beginning of time.
It might be easier for a rational person to see it this way: burning wood releases energy. But the energy in the wood came from the sun, and the sun was made billions of years ago. So, that burning piece of wood doesn't begin to exist only 100 years ago -- that burning piece of wood is a snapshot in time of a process that has been unfolding, and that MUST be traced back to the beginning of time, where the paradox of existence resides (and that the First Way fails to resolve, for the many reasons listed here in detail and with great repetition).
Can you re-read the statement you quoted and explain to me how understood it the way you did? I admit I mistyped "is did not exist". It should have read "it did not exist".
Will I get an answer to this?
I'll respond to this since the following entails the other comment:
Your choice of a tree from 100 years ago as being the beginning of the wood is arbitrary. Prior to that the material and energy that make up the tree inhabited other places and could have been identified with other things, but all of these identifications are arbitrary -- a tool of our subjectivity that helps us make useful sense of the world. You make the mistake of assuming that a thing that you identify (wood, a tree) is THE beginning, but it is not THE beginning for the complex relationships that are occurring all around us, and have been occurring since the beginning of time.
My choice of the tree beginning to exist exactly 100 ago was arbitrary, but not the fact that it began to exist in the more recent past. The "material and energy" that make up the tree were not (necessarily) in the form of a tree and had very different properties when they were in that different form. Sunlight, water and nutrients do not catch fire when a match is held next to them. This fact is not subjective.
Motion does not exist in the absence of existent things. No existent things, no motion. Existent material things consist of form and matter. Two things may consist of the same matter but due to their form, they have different natures and behave differently. As particular things come into existence, they operate and change according to the type of thing they are until they go out of existence. It is the changing of particular existent things that you witness happening now and remember as happening in the past.
Have you read the link to Feser's blog or watched the video? I'd rather not repeat it all here.
bmiller: "Can you re-read the statement you quoted and explain to me how understood it the way you did? I admit I mistyped "is did not exist". It should have read "it did not exist". / Will I get an answer to this?"
In the comment after which you asked this question I quoted you three times, so it wasn't at all obvious to me what you mean. And I don't care enough to try and sleuth it out for you -- you are casual, lazy, stupid, and deceptive, among other things. If there is a misunderstanding between us I may be at some fault, but I'm not going to pretend that you are an honest or reasonable interlocutor. You sailed that ship a looooong time ago.
Me: "If there is a misunderstanding between us I may be at some fault, but I'm not going to pretend that you are an honest or reasonable interlocutor. You sailed that ship a looooong time ago." bmiller: "Suit yourself. / If you're happy with misunderstanding, so be it."
Not quite. I just don't care to pretend that differences between someone like me, and yourself -- who is casual, lazy, stupid, and deceptive -- is attributable to misunderstanding.
The differences between us are chiefly moral. And morality can't be cleared up through explanation.
As I have explained above, the best explanation is that you suffer from a number of deficiencies (ignorance, inconsistency, narcissism, stupidity) which are a result of commensurate moral failings (not a strictly cognitive one) on your part, but this is what nonetheless makes you so stupid.
I think this is what's at the heart of saying that one can't fix stupid; I can tell you things you don't know, but I can't make you be someone who is largely different from how you are wired. And you (and other apologists) are wired like a defective robot, who seeks out the comfort of protective stupidity; I can't make you choose to become enlightened, or consistent, or consider intersubjectivity, or accept epistemic humility. Those are things that you have to be able to choose for yourself, and I'm not going to pretend that your encounters with the likes of me can change that.
So, no, I'm not content with misunderstandings. But I do accept that you and I are probably wired very differently, and I accept my limited ability to change that. I can try, but I don't expect real results.
In the comment after which you asked this question I quoted you three times, so it wasn't at all obvious to me what you mean. And I don't care enough to try and sleuth it out for you
So, no, I'm not content with misunderstandings.
I asked you a question to clarify for me why you misunderstood. You didn't answer that question, and indicated that you aren't interested in clearing up your misunderstanding. I'm OK with that whether it makes you happy or not.
Now feel free to whine and emote. When I see an actual argument I will respond. Or Ill just post anyway so I can have the last word ☺
bmiller: "I asked you a question to clarify for me why you misunderstood. You didn't answer that question, and indicated that you aren't interested in clearing up your misunderstanding. I'm OK with that whether it makes you happy or not."
I can't clear up the fact that you're dishonest; that's my point. And you are fundamentally dishonest. You are damaged. I can fix misunderstandings, but I can't make you a moral person, the kind who isn't dishonest, who cares about consistency, who doesn't lie, etc. -- and I can't fix your stupidity, or the other problems associated with your pathological thinking.
Those aren't normal misunderstandings between two well intentioned people; they are a case of my talking beyond and above you, because you are fundamentally stupid and ignorant, and this is a result of your dishonesty and poor moral character (which I cannot fix for you).
bmiller: "Even fling fact free accusations if you like. Seems that's your favorite pastime."
Fact: Your dishonesty can be viewed throughout these comments. I have pointed out many examples. So your denial is meaningless, except more evidence for my explanation that dishonesty inclines one toward stupidity.
bmiller: "Let me know when you can actually muster something resembling a rational argument."
Pointing out the numerous flaws in the First Way is trivial and easy for those who apply consistency to their thinking, and abide by the rules of good argument. This has been done so many times now that apologists asking for its repetition needs its own explanation.
As I have explained before as well, I am not so much interested in why the First Way is a bad argument (that's pretty easy to identify), but why some people fail so spectacularly at recognizing these failings.
My best explanation is that stupid people (such as yourself, and stevek, but this applies to all apologists) are stupid because they suffer from what are normally called moral deficiencies -- your inconsistency, willingness to lie and excuse lying, narcissism, etc. are a significant contributing source to what makes you stupid.
As a prediction to test this explanation, I will predict that you and other apologists will remain dishonest in your comments, and that you will remain stupid (for example, incapable of recognizing the obvious flaws in the First Way). And that your inability to become less stupid will be hindered in ways that can be tied to your moral deficiencies -- an inability to remain consistent, willingness to lie and excuse lying, and narcissism.
stevek: "We're supposed to trust the sanity of someone who believes that a cause billions of years ago put him in motion to get out of bed today?"
Um, yes, because that logic is inevitable. Unless you are too stupid to see that there is a direct link to the matter and energy that make up me and the beginning of our universe -- you can't have one without the other.
stevek: "We're supposed to trust the sanity of someone who believes that a cause billions of years ago put him in motion to get out of bed today?"
We're supposed to pay heed to a person who is so insecure that he lied about, for example, his being a mechanical engineer -- and refuses to correct and apologize for his lying?
Me: "We're supposed to trust the sanity of someone who believes that a cause billions of years ago put him in motion to get out of bed today?"
Cal "Um, yes, because that logic is inevitable. Unless you are too stupid to see that there is a direct link to the matter and energy that make up me and the beginning of our universe -- you can't have one without the other."
You can if you're not a mind-numbed naturalist. Unsound logic isn't worth much so any argument that includes the premise "you have no free will to act", can safely be ignored. If you think a cause from a billion years ago is what got you moving out of bed today, you just might be too stupid for words to describe - so I won't even try.
Ah, just checked in to see if you could muster some rationality, but I see it's just more evidence free assertions and name calling.
You are aware that ad hominem is a fallacy and not a rational way to argue aren't you? Most people resort to it when they know they've lost the argument. In your case you led with it and never quit. What conclusion would a reasonable person reach?
bmiller: "You are aware that ad hominem is a fallacy and not a rational way to argue aren't you?"
You don't understand ad hominem. Ad hominem is a fallacy when it is used as an excuse to dismiss an argument. But that's not what I have done.
I have pointed out the many flaws in the First Way, and why they do not abide by the rules of good argument. Apologists have made no meaningful reply to any of these criticisms -- unsound premises, muddled language and equivocation, begging the question, contradiction, and and ad hoc reasoning. These faults in the First Way are obvious, and they have been described with rigor in the comments (which I agree with) made and referenced repeatedly by Stardusty.
Apologists deny the above.
I don't care that apologists deny the above, because the determination of others is not what makes an argument a good or bad argument. What makes an argument good or bad are the rules of good argument -- which the First Way clearly violates, in the ways described above.
So, what you call ad hominem is not (at all) ad hominem.
It is explanation, for the stupidity evinced by apologists. My explanation is that apologists (as opposed to ignorant and mundanely stupid people) are made stupid by what we more normally call character defects -- including inconsistency, dishonesty, and narcissism.
This explanation of mine is NOT regarding why the First Way is a bad argument. The First Way is a bad argument because it fails to abide by the rules of good argument. For rigorous analysis of the ways in which the First Way fails, you could try to address Stardusty's comments here:
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 July 26, 2017 11:32 PM July 26, 2017 11:33 PM July 26, 2017 11:34 PM July 26, 2017 11:38 PM July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
But because you possess moral deficiencies, you wont' be able to apply the consistency, honesty, and epistemic humility required to understand rational analysis like the above. You are literally made stupid by your moral failings.
This is something that I hadn't considered to the degree I have before these series of posts began, but I am coming to believe that it is an undervalued and productive way to predict and explain stupidity such as yours and that of other apologists.
Not that you'll understand any of this. But I like to leave these comments here as self notes, in case I ever need to refer back to my earlier thinking.
" But because you possess moral deficiencies, you wont' be able to apply the consistency, honesty, and epistemic humility required to understand rational analysis like the above. You are literally made stupid by your moral failings." --Interesting hypothesis.
There must be some explanation for the blogging behaviors of theistic apologists.
Clearly different theisitic bloggers behave differently, although there are some common themes. bmiller - seems to be more of obscurantist or contrarian, exhibiting the trollish tendencies to play whack a mole with scattered bits and pieces of quips and irrelevant diversions, perhaps deriving some bizarre pleasure from a never ending game of misdirection using the willful ignorance of the malicious provocateur. SteveK - an obvious liar about being a mechanical engineer, but that seems to have been a sort of spur of the moment defense mechanism when cornered. Mostly throws out short and rather pointless posts. grod - another obvious liar about being a mathematical physicist, rarely makes any arguments at all, just shows up to imply he has some vast store of knowledge but it is beneath him to share it. Seems to have a quick fuse and quickly hurls pointless ad hominems. Legion - actually presents arguments, sometimes at length, but refuses to complete them, possibly as a defense mechanism when about to discover that his arguments inevitably lead to falsifications of his beliefs.
On your hypothesis above...made me consider the chicken and the egg. Do apologists argue in such a scattered and irrational manner because their low moral character drives them to behaviors that make them look stupid when they are not, or the other way around? Are they just stupid people who argue so badly that they appear to be acting out of low moral character?
Faith might make that choice a false dichotomy. Perhaps the apologist is generally of high moral character and also a reasonably bright person, but the indoctrination, one might say brainwashing, has affected their cognitive processes such that whenever rationality comes into conflict with core faith a cognitive breakdown occurs, which has the outward appearance of both stupidity and low moral character. On this hypothesis the theist is highly functional in other aspects of life, exhibiting both high moral character and high cognitive skills professionally and socially so long as such endeavors do not directly challenge the faith firewall to rationality.
>> "For rigorous analysis of the ways in which the First Way fails, you could try to address Stardusty's comments here:"
" For detailed replies that explain why these criticisms fail to be valid, see all 2300+ comments." August 04, 2017 9:43 AM
Please provide the date tags for the comments that specifically show my errors as I negate any call for an ontological first mover and I negate the very notion of an "essential" causal series in these posts July 26, 2017 11:32 PM July 26, 2017 11:33 PM July 26, 2017 11:34 PM July 26, 2017 11:38 PM July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
You don't understand ad hominem. Ad hominem is a fallacy when it is used as an excuse to dismiss an argument. But that's not what I have done.
Of course you have. In fact that is almost all you have done. The last time you even tried to address any counter-argument of mine was 3 days ago when the discussion was how only an existing tree/wood can burn.
Here is the dictionary definition. See especially 2. Merriam Webster: Definition of ad hominem 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect - an ad hominem argument 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made - made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival
Ad hominem attacks are irrational. Normally they are a sign of intellectual defeat. I assume that is the case since you persist in them rather than engaging with actual content of arguments.
SteveK is of course correct that any and all of the supposed objections have been answered multiple times. If you care to reply to any of them please do.
It's so adorable to see you 2 playing amateur psychologists. You appear to be just as good at that as making coherent arguments and reading comprehension (or even reading anything at all regarding the subject matter).
Most everybody gave up on this thread because they thought that there was no way that you were ever going to get a clue. But a few of us hung in there and behold, 8 months later, you too discovered what everyone had been telling you all that time. Trust me, if you work diligently, those things that have seemed obscure will clear up.
Some people would have bought Dr Feser's book Aquinas or other that have been suggested, but you chose the harder path of googling irrelevant sources. To each his own.
" If you can't remember the examples given, not my problem. I read your critique so at one time you knew about them." August 04, 2017 12:56 PM
--Well there was the one about the train, an obviously "accidental" series. And the one about holding a stick to push a rock, another obviously "accidental" series.
Here is how the train works A molecule of O2 moves into a cylinder. At a later time a hydrocarbon molecule is pumped into the cylinder. At a later time the these molecules react and produce fast moving CO2. At a later time the CO2 molecule smacks into the piston, pushing it down. At a later time electrons move into the coils of a motor. At a later time air molecules get smacked by the caboose. At a later time those air molecules hit other air molecules. And on and on and on.
That is what makes a the train go. It is an obviously "accidental" series.
Since you purport to be a mechanical engineer howzabout you set up a Solid Works simulation of how a train works. Of course, that is a finite element analysis package that uses models of differential functions from element to element to model such a temporal causal series.
You claim it's not an essential series. Remove the first step (or any other one) and tell me how this changes the motion of the train. Does it still chug, chug, chug up the hill just the same? If the answer is "no" then it's essential to the motion.
"Remove the first step (or any other one) and tell me how this changes the motion of the train." --It doesn't. Each cause and effect is irrecoverable. Future causes and effects are not real, only imagined or predicted, or variously likely or unlikely.
" Does it still chug, chug, chug up the hill just the same? " --Your very phrase "chug, chug, chug" is inherently a temporal sequence.
First there is a chug. Then later there is another chug. Then later there is another chug.
"Chug, chug, chug" is necessarily an "accidental" series because it is necessarily a temporal series.
What the Thomist does is to use the human perception of "present" unawares. We all build a model of the present in our brain. This consists of memory of the recent past, a continual tracking of what we perceive as the present moment, and an anticipation of the near future. For a human being all these perceptions and interpretations and imaginations are combined into what we call "the present".
So, if one combines all the causes over some time period into a label or title of "the cause" and further combine the effects over a time period into a label or title of "the effect" then "the cause" is perceived as concurrent with "the effect".
In truth these are gross oversimplifications that are necessary for a human being to function. We cannot possibly go around analyzing chemical reactions on an atomic scale, in astronomical numbers, in order to live our lives.
But the First Way seeks to explain some things most fundamental to the workings of our observable universe. To do so in the modern era requires that we do, in fact, analyze a causal series down to the most minute structures we know of, below the atom level.
It is in this full analysis that the A-T notions of simultaneity break down. As we understand the full scope of the myriad causal series we can understand the illusory nature of labeling an ongoing motion of the train as a single effect, and assigning the title of cause to a single complex mechanism such as a locomotive.
Every causal series is temporal, and thus necessarily "accidental"
Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes called the infinitesimal. A series cannot be contained within this limit, so every series has causes and effects that are not simultaneous. Therefore no series is "essential".
So now you've changed your mind - you're now saying that oxygen isn't essential to the motion of the train? It moves equally the same without oxygen, huh. Are you smoking weed, Dusty?
Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes called the infinitesimal. A series cannot be contained within this limit, so every series has causes and effects that are not simultaneous.
Nonsense. I linked you to the example of how physics typically considers force impressed on an object continuously causes the object to continue to move.
In case you didn't read it, here it is:
3. A train is pulling two cars of the same mass behind it. Show that the tension in the coupling between the train and the first car is twice that between the first car and the second car for any nonzero acceleration of the train.
If we select the first and second cars as the system, the only horizontal force is the tension in the coupling between the locomotive and the first car.
From the force diagram, we have ·Fx = (m1 + m2)ax , or F1 = (m + m)a= 2ma. If we select the second car as the system, the only horizontal force is the tension in the coupling between the first car and the second car. From the force diagram, we have Fx = m2ax , or F2 = ma.Thus we have F1/F2 = 2ma/ma = 2, for any nonzero acceleration
The locomotive is supplying the force. Neither of the cars are supplying the force and so the first car's coupler is only instrumental in moving the last car. The series of cars and the engine are all moving simultaneously.
This is not confusing to physicists, engineers or students taking physics courses. I'll bet most normal humans are capable of grasping this concept. It's amusing that you say this is all impossible, while using technology all the time based on these concepts.
" Nonsense. I linked you to the example of how physics typically considers force impressed on an object continuously causes the object to continue to move." --The problem does nothing to contradict my analysis of causation.
You do not know how to read for comprehension, at least on this subject.
You are so dense you do not even realize that is an acceleration problem, and acceleration is necessarily a temporal causal sequence and therefore an "accidental" series.
You are also so dense as to not realize that is not an attempt at a causal series analysis, rather, it is an idealized and grossly oversimplified model as an introduction to beginner students.
Or, you are not that dense and you just get some weird pleasure out of knowingly posting stupid statements.
Dusty doesn't realize how far his head is up his a$$ when he says stuff like:
"every series follows a time sequence of events and is thus "accidental"
Irrelevant. If Dusty could think clearly he would realize that an accidental series is one where the causal activity of a member in the series is not essentially dependent on that of any prior member of the series.
The refinery caused the diesel fuel to form, and that fuel now sits in the fuel tank on the train. Does the motion of the trains wheels, today, depend on the refinery? No. The refinery isn't helping to cause the motion. The refinery could be demolished to the ground and the wheels would turn just the same.
Contrast this with the series of parts on the train that drive the wheels. Does the motion of the trains wheels, today, depend on those parts? Yes. Those parts are helping to cause the motion.
>> "You are also so dense as to not realize that is not an attempt at a causal series analysis, rather, it is an idealized and grossly oversimplified model as an introduction to beginner students."
And yet it is neither deluded, irrational, incorrect or false. Why don't you call out your colleagues in the scientific community for being wrong, deluded, irrational and the like? They're the people teaching this stuff. Perhaps you should publish a paper and get the word out. I can hear the collective laughter now.
" The refinery caused the diesel fuel to form, and that fuel now sits in the fuel tank on the train. " --This gross oversimplification of a complex temporal process set indicates you are not the ME you claim to be.
"Does the motion of the trains wheels, today, depend on the refinery? No. " --Yes. Without the refinery processes the oil would not have been produced.
"The refinery isn't helping to cause the motion. The refinery could be demolished to the ground and the wheels would turn just the same." --The locomotive could be destroyed and the motion that has already occurred would not be undone.
Future motion is not real, only imagined or predicted.
" Contrast this with the series of parts on the train that drive the wheels. Does the motion of the trains wheels, today, depend on those parts? Yes." --"Today" is a long time. You are combining a whole set of causes and effects into a single cause and a single effect. If you were an ME you would know you could not run a finite element analysis to model the train using such a gross oversimplification.
" Why don't you call out your colleagues in the scientific community for being wrong, deluded, irrational and the like? " --They are not teaching A-T twaddle, so there is no such need for me to do so.
You are so dense you do not even realize that is an acceleration problem, and acceleration is necessarily a temporal causal sequence and therefore an "accidental" series.
F=ma. Consider m=1. If force = 0, acceleration = 0. If force = 1, acceleration = 1 at the same time. This has been empirically verified for over 300 years and counting. As far as the sciences of physics and engineering are concerned it's an established fact until and unless empirical evidence contradicts it.
At this time, I would like to point out that there was a contention that Newtonian physics contradicted the First Way somehow. When Legion pointed out that the argument was really metaphysical rather than a pure argument from physics you 2 insisted that it was only about physics. But as we know, physics and engineering use calculus to accurately measure instanteous velocity and it uses F=ma to compute the either the force impressed on an object or the acceleration of that object due to the force at any particular time under consideration and to predict the motion of the object in the future. "The science is settled" some would say.
But philosophers study metaphysics and the nature of time is a metaphysical question that people getting degrees in physcists do not study (today anyway). So your contention is a metaphysical contention and not a matter of physics as taught today. This validates Legion's contention that the argument is a at bottom a metaphysical argument.
So let's discuss what happens as we measure the local motion of an object accelerating as in the Feynman example 8-2. We can see that the measurement of velocity converges on a particular value as the increments of sampled time become smaller, that value being 160ft/sec. Is that value real or an illusion? Science assumes it is real and uses the value successfully in technology. But philosophers are squeamish about the metaphysics.
So there are a couple of questions to ask about the situation. What exactly happens when Δt goes to zero? Well, the first thing to note is that if we are talking about measuring position change Δx during Δt it is Δt that goes to zero, not t. So the measurement at t0 and t1 would actually be a single measurement(or a simultaneous measurement of position x) since t0=t1. It is clearly a useless exercise to take 2 simultaneous measurements of x to compute velocity.
If time is considered a continuum, then there really is no "single" point in time. Modern calculus is taught using the concept of continuous functions and limit theory rather than "infinitesimals", so the consideration of what happens at the "now" moment is not a consideration.
Aristotle also held the view that time was a continuum and that "now" was undefined other than a boundary between the present and the future. Very similar to the apex of the light cone in modern physics.
>> "They are not teaching A-T twaddle, so there is no such need for me to do so."
I was referring to the free body diagram that you insist is not consistent with the reality of causality. Since you think it's so wrong why not publish a paper? You'd be laughed at as the kook you are, that's why.
Me: "Does the motion of the trains wheels, today, depend on the refinery? No. " Dusty: "Yes"
Show me the refinery causing the wheels to move. You can't do that. I can show you the parts of the train that are causing the wheels to move. That's how science works. Observation and verification. Try it some time.
Stardusty: "On your hypothesis above...made me consider the chicken and the egg. Do apologists argue in such a scattered and irrational manner because their low moral character drives them to behaviors that make them look stupid when they are not, or the other way around? Are they just stupid people who argue so badly that they appear to be acting out of low moral character?"
I've often considered the same thing before. Recently I'm nudging toward the former -- that low moral character directs the subject in the direction of stupidity. I’ve been thinking about this for awhile, and it seems an underdeveloped explanation for what we observe — people with easy access to good information, who nonetheless remain painfully ignorant. This needs an explanation — in some ways, it is the pressing issue of our times.
What I hadn't appreciated enough is that not only does low moral character (which I roughly characterize as involving obvious inconsistency /hypocrisy, deception, and narcissism) present a social burden on others, but it also makes the subject stupider. In other words, I used to think that moral character only influenced one’s social interactions, but I’m coming to think that it also controls one’s navigation of asocial reality.
What’s only now occurring to me is that their might be an additional cost to immoral behavior, beyond the potential risks of ostracism, etc. — that additional cost being a sacrifice in how one can navigate reality independent of other creatures.
Stardusty: “Faith might make that choice a false dichotomy. Perhaps the apologist is generally of high moral character and also a reasonably bright person, but the indoctrination, one might say brainwashing, has affected their cognitive processes such that whenever rationality comes into conflict with core faith a cognitive breakdown occurs, which has the outward appearance of both stupidity and low moral character.”
I suppose it’s possible that indoctrination can diminish one’s moral character. Certainly we see this with children indoctrinated into cults — religious, military, criminal, etc. I like your (implied) supposition that moral character is malleable / redeemable, something that I often have trouble believing to be true.
Stardusty: “On this hypothesis the theist is highly functional in other aspects of life, exhibiting both high moral character and high cognitive skills professionally and socially so long as such endeavors do not directly challenge the faith firewall to rationality.”
I think you might be confusing “high moral character” with socially constructive things, which I think that those who are inconsistent, deceptive, and narcissistic are more or less capable of. To be clear, I am talking about immorality per se, despite the fact that those who behave immorally can be highly successful in some social and professional situations (for example, our President).
Still, I am old fashioned — I believe that in life, as in drama, character is fate. Eventually, it all comes round.
I repeat: Merriam Webster: Definition of ad hominem 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect - an ad hominem argument 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made - made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival
Ad hominem attacks are irrational. Normally they are a sign of intellectual defeat. I assume that is the case since you persist in them rather than engaging with actual content of arguments.
You have re-enforced my conclusion.
I will add that the fact that you cannot be rational does not make your opponent immoral. If you think it does, it is merely further demonstration that you are being irrational.
Now, if you choose the rational course, there is actual content presented relevant to the topic that you have a choice to discuss. Will you choose to argue rationally?
bmiller: "appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect - an ad hominem argument"
You seem to want to imply that I have (ever) argued that the First Way is a bad argument because you appear to be so stupid.
But this has never been my argument per se.
I have pointed out the problems with the First Way, and when apologists have shown themselves incapable of even engaging with the rules of argument I have provided an explanation for this inability as well. You are too stupid to understand, but I'll write it out with short words below.
1. The First Way is a bad argument according to the rules of good argument. 2. No meaningful (non spurious, non fallacious, etc.) interpretation of the First Way has been provided by apologists that avoids the ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. ^ This is both true and incredibly obvious.
3. The facts above are ignored by apologists in ways that can best be summarized as stupidity. 4. Furthermore, apologists could be made stupid(er) by the character flaws we see in all apologists -- inconsistency (hypocrisy), deceit, and narcissism -- character flaws that can be beneficial for an individual in a social group, but are likely not advantageous outside highly complex social relationships (the rest of reality). ^ These could be debated, and although these points derived from 1 & 2 above, their status is independent of the argument being discussed.
Do you see where 3 & 4 -- what you incorrectly call ad hominem -- are independent of the facts and the argument at issue as described in 1 and 2? Do you understand the difference between ad hominem -- which relates to insults used to undermine an argument -- and an insult, which is used to provoke and rebuke individuals who evince certain behaviors?
Do you understand that the reasons I have provided for why the First Way is a bad argument are independent of the reasons I have offered for why you are made stupid(er)?
If you don't understand the above, after all this, the best explanation is that you are stupid. And that you are likely made stupider by your moral deficiencies -- which can be seen by reading your comments in the context of the discussion above.
Which doesn't change the fact that the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument, for the reasons described and referred to so many times now.
Side note: I think it's funny when apologists say something really stupid that skeptics just ignore because it's so stupid, and the apologist starts to think that the reason the skeptic has ignored it is because they're trying to avoid the point. So the apologist usually starts to really press the stupidity, thinking maybe their actually on to something this time.
But no. What you originally wrote (that the criticism of the First Way offered here prior, over and over so many times now, was somehow an ad hominem) was just really stupid the first time.
" an ad hominem argument" --I haven't seen any ad hominem arguments against the first way here.
The first way is a bad argument because it is logically invalid and also unsound for a variety of other reasons.
You do really dumb things like post a freshman simplified acceleration problem as evidence for the acceptance of an "essential" series by physics. I mean, that is stunningly stupid. Acceleration is necessarily a process over time and clearly an "accidental" series. A freshman physics problem is not intended to be a detailed analysis of causation for the system. The fact that you repeat such problems the way you do means you are either incredibly dense or you take some bizarre pleasure in dishonestly posting nonsense.
Your absurd posts are not the reason the first way is unsound, so I am not making an ad hominem argument against the first way. My arguments against the first way can be found here: 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 30, 2017 7:08 AM June 30, 2017 5:45 PM July 23, 2017 1:17 PM July 23, 2017 1:19 PM July 23, 2017 1:20 PM July 26, 2017 11:32 PM July 26, 2017 11:33 PM July 26, 2017 11:34 PM July 26, 2017 11:38 PM July 26, 2017 11:39 PM July 28, 2017 5:12 PM
You seem to want to imply that I have (ever) argued that the First Way is a bad argument because you appear to be so stupid.
Really? I can only post words and sentences. I can't understand them for you....that's something you are responsible for.
From 4 days ago:
Here is the dictionary definition. See especially 2. Merriam Webster: Definition of ad hominem 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect - an ad hominem argument 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made - made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival
Do you see the parts I put in bold print? Do you understand what those words mean?
You have been attacking your opponents' characters rather than the content of their arguments.
It seems you still choose irrationality. I suggest you give rational thought a try.
--I haven't seen any ad hominem arguments against the first way here.
Well, I haven't seen any coherent arguments against the First Way here. I have seen you 2 hurl insults rather than dealing with the content of your opponents contentions.
from the definition: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
A freshman physics problem is not intended to be a detailed analysis of causation for the system.
This was addressed August 06, 2017 1:11 PM. I've linked to Feynman and to that particular physics problem to support my position. I checked out the links you provided and....oh wait...you didn't provide any links. In fact you haven't provided any evidence at all. You know, I am a skeptic so you will understand why I don't believe you.
Your list of irrelevant and point missing contentions have been addressed and refuted throughout this thread, at the Feser site and on the "Richard Swinburne on doubt and faith" post.
My arguments against the first way can be found here:
And they have all been refuted here:
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM March 19, 2017 12:31 PM July 22, 2017 2:39 PM January 22, 2017 6:28 PM February 12, 2017 5:59 PM February 05, 2017 11:23 AM February 07, 2017 11:25 AM February 12, 2017 4:48 PM May 23, 2017 8:40 PM June 30, 2017 7:50 AM March 19, 2017 2:14 PM July 08, 2017 8:23 PM May 07, 2017 12:07 PM May 11, 2017 12:19 PM May 18, 2017 8:37 PM July 02, 2017 12:50 PM July 09, 2017 7:53 AM July 11, 2017 12:25 PM
" It has been argued that Newton's First Law of Motion refuted Aristotle. If so, we would expect Newton to point that out." July 11, 2017 12:25 PM
--Irrelevant, like all your supposed "refutations". Sorry, they are not all irrelevant, some are incoherent, others are factually mistaken, and there are a variety of defects in them all.
Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing. Since there is no change then there is not changer called for in that circumstance.
In other circumstances there is no changer called for for other reasons I detailed July 26 and you did not even list any so called "refutations" after that date because you don't have anything you can even try to pass off as such.
Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing. Since there is no change then there is not changer called for in that circumstance.
This was first addressed at the Feser blog. It was addressed multiple times and in fact by the article you quoted from Dr Feser at that blog.
Here was a typical response https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
Repeated here a couple times again: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10584495&postID=1424858326254363402 August 04, 2017 12:48 August 05, 2017 2:32 PM
Once again since you didn't get it the first 3 times, here it is again: This seems to be the gist of your argument: 1) Things that don't change do not require a changer. 2) Some things do not change. 3) Therefore there is no need of an ultimate Unchanged Changer.
Here was my reply: 1) The First Way does not address things that don't change. The first premise only requires the observation that something is changing and that could be only 1 thing. So the fact that some things do not change is irrelevant to the argument. 2) So in order to defeat the First Way, it must be demonstrated that nothing is moving or has ever moved. 3) But even if that could be demonstrated (per impossible since demonstration would be change) the question of "why are there things?", the ontological cause, could still be asked and still would still lead to God.
The dates and links I provided gave the actual definition of inertia, not the one you made up. But I suggest that if you want to make up your own definitions, please try to make up coherent ones. This invention states that an object in motion is not changing but it certainly is changing wrt to position.
I didn't address anything after July 26 in my list because all of your point-missing and incoherent ramblings were generated and addressed well before that date. Do I really have to add all the times I have to repeat the same thing and list all the posts on the other thread on this blog?
bmiller: " It has been argued that Newton's First Law of Motion refuted Aristotle. If so, we would expect Newton to point that out." Stardusty: "--Irrelevant, like all your supposed "refutations". Sorry, they are not all irrelevant, some are incoherent, others are factually mistaken, and there are a variety of defects in them all."
I don't think you should be sorry that bmiller and other apologists flail about as they do.
Yes, their replies are irrelevant, incoherent, mistaken, and largely defective of intellectual value.
But the mistake is that you (and I) are discussing the obvious defects of the First Way, whereas the apologists are really just trying to defend the notion that their group's beliefs are somehow still worthy of intellectual respect, and by so doing they should receive the benefits presented to those who buttress group cohesion.
You and I are testing reality, using the tools of those who probe reality (outside the powerful dynamics that affect the lives of all of us who belong to groups that vie for resources available to humans). Apologists are nakedly fighting for the spoils inside the social construction that we inhabit. For you and I empiricism, and the rules of argument, are what arbitrate reality. For apologists, psychological defects (their own, and those who are under the control of such defects) are the currency that they value. Any use of the language of enlightened thinking serves that pretense.
This is the broader dynamic that explains these exchanges, in which the psychological disorders of the apologist I have highlighted (inconsistency / hypocrisy, deceit, and narcissism) can simultaneously be objectively wrong and advantageous. Arguments do not have to right to be effective.
This is all painfully and awkwardly obvious to the likes of you and me. Less obvious is what we can do about it. And just as previous generations of enlightened individuals lit candles and then fought against superstition, then imperialism, then fascism, then communism, this presents itself as the less obvious, but possibly more insidious and dangerous, force that must be confronted and defeated.
I suspect that social norms / pressures are the answer. That is why ridicule remains effective, and why I think that engaging with the likes of the apologists on this blog, while instructive, might do as much harm as it does good -- engaging here also enables apologists to pretend that their ideas are worthy of consideration, that they are valuable.
>> You and I are testing reality, using the tools of those who probe reality
You're joking, obviously, because Dusty wants everyone to believe that a demolished refinery is actually causing the wheels of the train to move. That's some serious delusional stuff right there - but that's naturalism for you.
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM March 19, 2017 12:31 PM July 22, 2017 2:39 PM January 22, 2017 6:28 PM February 12, 2017 5:59 PM February 05, 2017 11:23 AM February 07, 2017 11:25 AM February 12, 2017 4:48 PM May 23, 2017 8:40 PM June 30, 2017 7:50 AM March 19, 2017 2:14 PM July 08, 2017 8:23 PM May 07, 2017 12:07 PM May 11, 2017 12:19 PM May 18, 2017 8:37 PM July 02, 2017 12:50 PM July 09, 2017 7:53 AM July 11, 2017 12:25 PM
July 10, 2017 at 8:46 PM July 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM July 11, 2017 at 8:40 AM July 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM July 13, 2017 at 10:19 AM July 13, 2017 at 7:36 PM July 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM July 16, 2017 at 1:40 PM July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM July 18, 2017 at 7:53 PM July 18, 2017 at 8:01 PM July 19, 2017 at 5:39 AM July 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM July 20, 2017 at 9:26 PM July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM July 22, 2017 at 11:20 PM July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM July 23, 2017 at 9:44 PM July 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM
Me: "Yes, [bmiller's and other apologists'] replies are irrelevant, incoherent, mistaken, and largely defective of intellectual value." bmiller: "You have made an assertion. You have the burden of proof to support that assertion. Here is the list of replies I supplied. Please support your assertion with evidence and rational arguments."
Ha. How do you propose I make you see how your comments are largely incoherent, mistaken, and largely defective of intellectual value when the stupidity that allows you to make comments that are largely incoherent, mistaken and largely defective of intellectual value is the same stupidity with which you will evaluate my reply?
And is the same stupidity that would prevent you from recognizing the problem that you propose above.
Still, I'll probably get around to looking at your first reply, then pointing out the problems with it in some detail, knowing that you will reply that what you really meant was something else, how the sloppy and dilettantish musings are instead notations that are too complex for the words you used when you had the opportunity, and that the real answers supposedly (as they ALWAYS do with apologist) lie in some elsewhere that never actually provides the answers that were promised.
The contents of the first link (March 18, 2017 10:47 AM), in total, that bmiller represented as refuting the detailed criticisms of the First Way:
bmiller: For readers who didn't read or ignored the very first comment on this topic and did not click the link to the Summa Contra Gentiles: / "[10] It is to be noted, however, that Plato, who held that every mover is moved [Phaedrus], understood the name motion in a wider sense than did Aristotle. For Aristotle understood motion strictly, according as it is the act of what exists in potency inasmuch as it is such. So understood, motion belongs only to divisible bodies, as it is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. According to Plato, however, that which moves itself is not a body. Plato understood by motion any given operation, so that to understand and to judge are a kind of motion. Aristotle likewise touches upon this manner of speaking in the De anima [III, 7]. Plato accordingly said that the first mover moves himself because he knows himself and wills or loves himself. In a way, this is not opposed to the reasons of Aristotle. There is no difference between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle." /There's plenty more there for the honest seeker. /March 18, 2017 10:47 AM"
How any of this addresses, let alone refutes the criticisms offered -- namely, that the First Way uses muddled language, equivocates, is unsound, contradicts itself, and is ad hoc (as specifically explicated in the links that Stardusty provided above) -- is something that only someone who is made stupid could believe.
So, another lie, supported by stupidity, born from deficient moral character. From bmiller, who is an apologist.
Ha. How do you propose I make you see how your comments are largely incoherent, mistaken,
For a start, you could demonstrate that you understand the First Way argument. After all the "Rules of Good Argument" state that you shouldn't argue about things you misunderstand. This can be done by repeating what you think it means back to your opponents in your own words and see if they agree if you got it right. You could quote primary sources and/or qualified expert opinion to support your arguments.
Regarding specific points of disagreement, you could ask for clarification if you think you misunderstand your opponent, then if you think you understand corrrectly, point out where you think there is a flaw in their position, provide a reason for why you think it is a flaw, provide relevant citations if applicable and evaluate your opponent's response rationally.
How any of this addresses, let alone refutes the criticisms offered -- namely, that the First Way uses muddled language, equivocates, is unsound, contradicts itself, and is ad hoc (as specifically explicated in the links that Stardusty provided above) -- is something that only someone who is made stupid could believe.
The particular quote you chose was repeated 2 more times, here: March 19, 2017 12:31 PM and here:July 22, 2017 2:39 PM.
Why not read those 2 also and see if you understand.
Me: "Ha. How do you propose I make you see how your comments are largely incoherent, mistaken, and largely defective of intellectual value when the stupidity that allows you to make comments that are largely incoherent, mistaken and largely defective of intellectual value is the same stupidity with which you will evaluate my reply?" bmiller: "For a start, you could demonstrate that you understand the First Way argument."
I do understand the First Way, as demonstrated by my recognizing the problems in the argument. My question to you was -- how do I cure you of your stupidity? I don't think you have an answer to that question. I certainly don't.
bmiller: "After all the "Rules of Good Argument" state that you shouldn't argue about things you misunderstand."
No, that's not a rule of argument -- you (surprise!) have it almost exactly wrong. The rules of good argument are in many ways derived from Socrates, who presented an exemplar of the rules by asking about things that it seemed he didn't understand -- but in the process exposed the claimant as being the one who was confused. Think, Columbo.
Of course, you are too ignorant to understand the paragraph above, and too stupid to figure it out, and too juvenile to understand who and what Columbo represented. And that's because to people like me, you are just a stupid child.
bmiller: "This can be done by repeating what you think it means back to your opponents in your own words and see if they agree if you got it right."
Wow. This is so not how to evaluate an argument. You are genuinely stupid.
bmiller: "You could quote primary sources and/or qualified expert opinion to support your arguments."
Primary sources to support an argument about motion, about physical reality? You are genuinely stupid.
If by "expert opinion" you mean modern understanding of physical reality, then I would agree that our modern understanding of physical reality is the best way to evaluate an argument about motion. But, seeing as how your comments regularly reveal that you don't even possess a basic understanding of high school-level physics (you seem homeschooled), this is hardly something of which you seem capable.
bmiller: "The particular quote you chose was repeated 2 more times, here: March 19, 2017 12:31 PM and here:July 22, 2017 2:39 PM. / Why not read those 2 also and see if you understand."
Because they are irrelevant to the problems pointed out in the First Way.
Repeating mistakes doesn't fix the mistake; it just demonstrates stupidity.
bmiller: "The particular quote you chose was repeated 2 more times, here: March 19, 2017 12:31 PM and here:July 22, 2017 2:39 PM. / Why not read those 2 also and see if you understand."
Because they are irrelevant to the problems pointed out in the First Way.
Well, I can point you to the posts and I can even post them again. But I can't understand them for you. That's something you have to do with your own mind.
I asked: *What will you do?*
Again no substance. Just increasingly frantic rage. Maybe you should take a break and chill. This seems to be too much for you emotionally.
My prediction was very accurate. When it's been explained to you how your criticisms are wrong, and when you're all out of new ideas - you hurl insults.
" For a start, you could demonstrate that you understand the First Way argument. "
--Done. In plain text it is an argument from motion, based on the senses, and therefore temporal. The consideration for an infinite regress is therefore necessarily temporal on the plain text reading and the assertion of the impossibility of an infinite regress is therefore temporally false on an eternal universe that both A and T claimed could not be disproved.
So, apologists quickly turn to "what he really meant" excuses that are not in the plain text of the argument and are claimed to have support in other writings of Aquinas.
According to the "what he really meant" excuse makers "motion" means "change" and the infinite regress is somehow about an ontological series, that is a supposed regress of causes for existence itself in zero time in the present.
No explanation is provided as to why change argues for an ontological regress, or why the argument is titled as being from motion, if it is supposedly really about existence in zero time, given that zero change happens in zero time.
But, that bit of absurdity aside there is no call for any regress of causes other than physics. To explain the structures we observe is a physics problem that can and does simply terminate with fundamental physics, end of story, no problem.
No explanation is provided as to why an unchanged changer is needed to change things just to explain their continued existence, which is not itself a change. So the whole notion of an ontological regression in connection with a first mover is a non-sequitur.
In considering any sort persistence of motion or existence either there is no change occurring and thus no changer is required, or if change is happening it is necessarily happening over time, thus calling for a temporal regress which is no problem on an eternal universe.
So, fundamentally, the First Way falls apart no matter what interpretation is applied. Only people who are incapable of following each thread of argument through to its conclusion find any rational merit in the argument from any interpretation.
Plus there are the structural defects such as begging the question, ad hoc assertion, demonstrably false premise, and the preposterous incompleteness of the argument.
The First Way, in the end, does not even attempt to make an argument for the existence of god. All it does is tell the absurd falsehood about human ideas about god, saying nothing about any demonstration of the real existence of god.
Those who understand the First Way understand all these defects.
Those who are ignorant of the First Way think it is a good argument.
--Done. In plain text it is an argument from motion, based on the senses, and therefore temporal. The consideration for an infinite regress is therefore necessarily temporal on the plain text reading and the assertion of the impossibility of an infinite regress is therefore temporally false on an eternal universe that both A and T claimed could not be disproved.
It seems your "In plain text reading" actually means how *Strawdusty* interprets it, which of course is wrong as all commentators and scholars of Aristotle and Aquinas attest as well as all of us who have actually bothered to do the research. The fact that you cannot summon any knowledgeable expert to support your view is conclusive.
The rest of your assertions have all been rebutted without answer. If you would like to try again, here is the list.
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM March 19, 2017 12:31 PM July 22, 2017 2:39 PM January 22, 2017 6:28 PM February 12, 2017 5:59 PM February 05, 2017 11:23 AM February 07, 2017 11:25 AM February 12, 2017 4:48 PM May 23, 2017 8:40 PM June 30, 2017 7:50 AM March 19, 2017 2:14 PM July 08, 2017 8:23 PM May 07, 2017 12:07 PM May 11, 2017 12:19 PM May 18, 2017 8:37 PM July 02, 2017 12:50 PM July 09, 2017 7:53 AM July 11, 2017 12:25 PM
July 10, 2017 at 8:46 PM July 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM July 11, 2017 at 8:40 AM July 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM July 13, 2017 at 10:19 AM July 13, 2017 at 7:36 PM July 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM July 16, 2017 at 1:40 PM July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM July 18, 2017 at 7:53 PM July 18, 2017 at 8:01 PM July 19, 2017 at 5:39 AM July 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM July 20, 2017 at 9:26 PM July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM July 22, 2017 at 11:20 PM July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM July 23, 2017 at 9:44 PM July 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM
bmiller: "It seems your "In plain text reading" actually means how *Strawdusty* interprets it, which of course is wrong as all commentators and scholars of Aristotle and Aquinas attest as well as all of us who have actually bothered to do the research. The fact that you cannot summon any knowledgeable expert to support your view is conclusive."
These two sentence confirm, yet again, that
1. You are too stupid to understand basic physics and apply logic, and 2. You think that a known fallacy (argument from authority) is not only not a fallacy, but that any voice of authority could trump physical reality.
The first is an example of your poor moral character making you stupider (you are inconsistent, and this prevents you from understanding that logic is first and foremost about consistency). If you can't be consistent, you can't apply logic, and if you can't apply logic, you can't think well. And if you can't think well, you are stupid.
The second is an example of your basic stupidity enabling you to believe that experts arbitrate physical reality (they do not, as all those who understand science know), and your poor moral character (your narcissism) making this belief even stupider by stipulating that you are the one who determines whose opinion should be considered valid concerning physical reality. But people's opinion doesn't stipulate how reality behaves; reality does that.
Thus, per my recent posts, your comments reveal that you are stupid, and that your poor moral character appears to be an intrinsic component of what makes you stupider.
That's the problem with the likes of you and other apologists; it's not just that you don't understand the basic skills needed to understand and test ideas, it's that you lack the moral character required to adopt them.
And it seems that poor moral character is inevitably involved when people are stupid as you have been in these threads.
bmiller: "The particular quote you chose was repeated 2 more times, here: March 19, 2017 12:31 PM and here:July 22, 2017 2:39 PM. / Why not read those 2 also and see if you understand."
So, it was irrelevant to the criticism provided not once, but three times, then?
bmiller: "Well, I can point you to the posts and I can even post them again. But I can't understand them for you. That's something you have to do with your own mind."
It's clear that you don't know how to form an argument.
The best explanation for you thinking that a "rebuttal" to the criticism explicated here is that you somehow believe that a writer pronouncing "there is no difference" between moving and not moving somehow makes it so. I would normally characterize this as aggressive gullibility on your part, but per my explanation over more recent characteristics I attribute this stupid notion to your narcissism -- that you put yourself before reality, and figure that your determinations (what you think, whose opinions you choose, etc.) are decisive in a discussion about reality. This is the apologist stupidity that is born from moral deficiencies.
bmiller: "I asked: *What will you do?*" / Again no substance. Just increasingly frantic rage. / Maybe you should take a break and chill. This seems to be too much for you emotionally."
>> "1. You are too stupid to understand basic physics and apply logic, and 2. You think that a known fallacy (argument from authority) is not only not a fallacy, but that any voice of authority could trump physical reality."
I've read enough of Aristotle, Aquinas and various commentary on both to know you are wrong on both points. There is no argument from authority, there's only a desire for skeptics to understand the metaphysical arguments correctly. You're not doing that, hence all the comments that explain why your criticisms are wrong. Since your criticisms are wrong, they are empty and powerless.
You think that a known fallacy (argument from authority) is not only not a fallacy, but that any voice of authority could trump physical reality.
Citing experts is only a fallacy when the authorities cited are not really an experts, or if a point is acknowledged as controversial in the field.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ 9. The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them.
Now if you want to provide evidence that Aristotle, Aquinas, Feser, Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, etc have no expertise regarding the First Way, or that they disagreed among themselves regarding the premises or conclusion then please provide that evidence.
But that fact that you try to bring this up is rather ironic considering that you've repeatedly appealed to the authority of "modern physics" as an argument against the metaphyscis of the First Way.
So, it was irrelevant to the criticism provided not once, but three times, then?
The link was provided to the SCG before the criticism was asserted, so it's actually the criticism that is irrelevant since the criticism did not address the argument as presented.
The best explanation for you thinking that a "rebuttal" to the criticism explicated here is that you somehow believe that a writer pronouncing "there is no difference" between moving and not moving somehow makes it so.
Well the only one who asserted anything like "there is no difference" between moving and not moving was Strawdusty here: Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing. . I certainly don't believe both propositions of a contradiction can be true at the same time in the same sense as he apparently does.
@SteveK,
My prediction was very accurate. When it's been explained to you how your criticisms are wrong, and when you're all out of new ideas - you hurl insults.
I don't think you have this quite right. I don't think Cal can actually muster a single comment without hurling childish, pointless insults. It's more like the only ideas he has are insults. One would wish he could be a little more creative if that's all he's got. He's really rather boring.
Me: "The best explanation for you thinking that a "rebuttal" to the criticism explicated here is that you somehow believe that a writer pronouncing "there is no difference" between moving and not moving somehow makes it so." bmiller: Well the only one who asserted anything like "there is no difference" between moving and not moving was Strawdusty here: [Stardusty:] "Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing. . I certainly don't believe both propositions of a contradiction can be true at the same time in the same sense as he apparently does."
Of course, you are just a liar. For one, Stardusty's comment isn't about there not being a difference between moving and not moving, but that we now understand that something in motion will remain in motion (this is basic physics, which I know you don't understand). So, of course, your ignorance prevents you from grasping a simple concept, and being confused as a result.
But you're more egregiously a liar because you state:'
bmiller"Well the only one who asserted anything like "there is no difference" between moving and not moving was Strawdusty..."
bmiller(quoting Aquinas here, THREE TIMES!!!): "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle."
Of course, you are just a liar. For one, Stardusty's comment isn't about there not being a difference between moving and not moving, but that we now understand that something in motion will remain in motion (this is basic physics, which I know you don't understand). So, of course, your ignorance prevents you from grasping a simple concept, and being confused as a result.
Strawdusty said: Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing.
Motion is change. Uniform motion is change. Strawdusty says that uniform motion is not change. This is a contradiction.
bmiller(quoting Aquinas here, THREE TIMES!!!): "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle."
Yes, but you didn't understand the point of the passage which was to clarify what the definition of motion means to Aristotle vs Plato. Namely that the type of motion that Aristotle refers to is the type of motion that Newton also refers to as a material body made of parts occupying space. The inanimate material things we perceive moving don't normally change their mind. If so, then why don't they decide to change direction or stop moving?
BTW are you actually capable of doing a single post without an insult?
Strawdusty said: Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing.
" Motion is change. Uniform motion is change." --Here you expose your fundamental misunderstanding. What about the object in uniform motion is changing by virtue of it being in motion? Its mass? Its energy? Its structure (what you would likely call "form")?
Suppose 2 objects approach each other. Which is moving and which is standing still? Or are both moving? How fast are each moving? Relative to each other the choice is arbitrary and merely a function of how one arbitrarily chooses a reference frame.
" Strawdusty says that uniform motion is not change." --Not precisely what I said. "an object in uniform motion is not changing". The object is not changing. Its position relative to some other object is changing, but the object is not changing. No property of the object is changing.
" This is a contradiction." --Only to the extent that I contradict your misunderstanding.
What about the object in uniform motion is changing by virtue of it being in motion?
If you declare that an object is in motion, then you have declared it is changing.
Suppose 2 objects approach each other. Which is moving and which is standing still? Or are both moving? How fast are each moving? Relative to each other the choice is arbitrary and merely a function of how one arbitrarily chooses a reference frame.
You arbitrarily chose to select a frame such that the object was in motion, thus changing.
" Strawdusty says that uniform motion is not change." --Not precisely what I said. "an object in uniform motion is not changing". The object is not changing. Its position relative to some other object is changing, but the object is not changing. No property of the object is changing.
Then you've equivocated by using motion/change in 2 different senses in the same statement without qualification. I can only respond to what you wrote. I acknowledge that you distinguish different types of change other than local motion.
--Only to the extent that I contradict your misunderstanding.
Like I said. I can only respond to what you wrote, and "the plain text reading" reveals, it is a contradiction.
Strawdusty: "Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing."
bmiller: "Motion is change."
Motion is a change in position. Good.
bmiller: "Uniform motion is change."
Uniform motion is also change -- a change in position that is in proportion to the time elapsed.
bmiller: "Strawdusty says that uniform motion is not change."
Nope. Stardusty confirms what is accepted -- that the term inertia is used to describe that an object in uniform motion is not changing, and that an object in uniform motion will remain in that state (uniform motion) until something else acts upon it. This is a fundamental, bedrock principle of classical physics.
bmiller: "This is a contradiction."
Only if you don't understand basic physics. And you don't understand basic physics.
[my capitalization added below] bmiller: "Well the only one who asserted anything like "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" between moving and not moving was Strawdusty here: Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing." bmiller, three time prior to his false claim above: "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle." bmiller (caught in a lie): "Yes, but you didn't understand the point of the passage..."
The point is that you are a liar. And liars, and those who are morally deficient, are made stupider by their moral failings. Until you can apply consistency to your thinking, and avoid hypocrisy and deceit, you have no hope of grasping reality, let alone contributing to a fruitful intellectual discussion that tries to understand the riddles of existence.
bmiller: "BTW are you actually capable of doing a single post without an insult?"
Of course. I seldom, if ever, insult gratuitously. However, when someone is hypocritical, deceptive, and narcissistic, I will insult and ridicule, because those are the most effective (and kindest) ways to respond while still confronting the stupidity that is made worse by moral failings.
The consistency of my insulting response to apologists is commensurate with the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism they evince. So, I suppose my insults would seem relentless to you; just imagine how much I have to shake my head every time it's required.
Only if you don't understand basic physics. And you don't understand basic physics.
Well if you think that basic physics tells us that "uniformly changing" = "not changing" you need to provide the evidence because this is an explicit contradiction. At least Strawdusty admitted he was equivocating. It seems you're tripling down on dumb.
bmiller, three time prior to his false claim above: "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle." bmiller (caught in a lie): "Yes, but you didn't understand the point of the passage..."
You use the word "lie" alot. I don't think you know what that means.
It is clear from the quoted passage that Plato used the word "moves" in a different sense than Aristotle. Just like Strawdusty made a distinction between his terms "in uniform motion" and "changing" in his latest post. He then is a liar according to your definition if you apply the definition rationally.
Go ahead and insult away. That's what children do and I've set my expectations accordingly.
bmiller: "Well if you think that basic physics tells us that "uniformly changing" = "not changing" you need to provide the evidence because this is an explicit contradiction."
Stardusty wrote that object could be in "uniform motion" seven times. Not once has he written "uniformly changing." Who is the only person here to write the term "uniformly changing"?
Why, that's you. Bmiller, the liar. The liar who puts "uniformly changing" in quotes as if he is citing someone other than his own confused mind, made more stupid by his moral deficiencies -- in particular a willingness to be dishonest, and accept dishonesty.
bmiller: "At least Strawdusty admitted he was equivocating. It seems you're tripling down on dumb."
False. It would actually be a lie were Stardusty to state that he has equivocated (used the term in more than one sense, in order to confuse or deceive) in his use of the term "uniform motion" with regard to how it is understood in classical physics, as he does not appear to have done so.
But you have falsely claimed that he has equivocated, and you have falsely claimed that he has admitted to equivocating (for something he did not equivocate about). This is all so easily apparent from the discussion above that the best way to explain your stupidity here is that your moral deficiencies (in particular you dishonesty) are making you even stupider.
Since you insist on behaving like I child I will accommodate you and address you as one.
Now I understand that big words and proper punctuation are difficult for some children but please try to follow along.
Why, that's you. Bmiller, the liar. The liar who puts "uniformly changing" in quotes as if he is citing someone other than his own confused mind, made more stupid by his moral deficiencies -- in particular a willingness to be dishonest, and accept dishonesty.
However, I did ask you to defend your assertion that the phrase "uniform motion is not change" is not a contradiction according to "basic physics". Given that you agreed that "Uniform motion is also change". August 14, 2017 3:28 PM. I'm still waiting.
BTW, that post is now added to my list of typical atheist "reasoning". Quite a long list now.
bmiller: "At least Strawdusty admitted he was equivocating. It seems you're tripling down on dumb."
False. It would actually be a lie were Stardusty to state that he has equivocated
He admitted " Its position relative to some other object is changing," but "No property of the object is changing." [quality perhaps?]. No such qualification was given in the original statement, hence an equivocation.
So you see? No big bad man is lying to you.
But it seems that once again, you've gotten off topic. Must be time for your nap. When you wake up you may want to try to engage with actual arguments relevant to the topic. In case you forgot:
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM March 19, 2017 12:31 PM July 22, 2017 2:39 PM January 22, 2017 6:28 PM February 12, 2017 5:59 PM February 05, 2017 11:23 AM February 07, 2017 11:25 AM February 12, 2017 4:48 PM May 23, 2017 8:40 PM June 30, 2017 7:50 AM March 19, 2017 2:14 PM July 08, 2017 8:23 PM May 07, 2017 12:07 PM May 11, 2017 12:19 PM May 18, 2017 8:37 PM July 02, 2017 12:50 PM July 09, 2017 7:53 AM July 11, 2017 12:25 PM August 06, 2017 1:11 PM
July 10, 2017 at 8:46 PM July 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM July 11, 2017 at 8:40 AM July 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM July 13, 2017 at 10:19 AM July 13, 2017 at 7:36 PM July 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM July 16, 2017 at 1:40 PM July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM July 18, 2017 at 7:53 PM July 18, 2017 at 8:01 PM July 19, 2017 at 5:39 AM July 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM July 20, 2017 at 9:26 PM July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM July 22, 2017 at 11:20 PM July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM July 23, 2017 at 9:44 PM July 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM
bmiller: "Since you insist on behaving like I child I will accommodate you and address you as one. Now I understand that big words and proper punctuation are difficult for some children but please try to follow along."
mkay.
bmiller: "Now now Little Cal, I didn't claim to be quoting anyone."
You used quote marks as you (mis)characterized what you thought I had said, and claimed that your mischaracterization was something that I had made explicit. No you try and cover your tracks, by claiming that "uniformly changing" is... a technical term? used in an unusual way? varying from the standard way that "uniformly changing" is used? Which one is it that you intended, exactly?
"Uniformly changing" is not a technical term. "Uniformly changing" is not being used in an unusual way -- it has to be a usual term in order for its use to be unusual, and that is impossible with odd terms like the one you introduced. "Uniformly changing" does not vary from standard usage, because it is an odd term, that has no standard use.
So, you remain stupid, on the wide, sturdy foundation of your dishonesty. Your poor moral character is the bedrock upon which you pile your comments here, and which serve as an impressive monument to the ways in which you can appear stupid.
bmiller: "However, I did ask you to defend your assertion that the phrase "uniform motion is not change" is not a contradiction according to "basic physics"."
Okay. From basic (classical) physics: "In every material universe, the motion of a particle in a preferential reference frame Φ is determined by the action of forces whose total vanished for all times when and only when the velocity of the particle is constant in Φ. That is, a particle initially at rest or in uniform motion in the preferential frame Φ continues in that state unless compelled by forces to change it."
That is how. That you are apparently unaware of the above can only be attributed to a kind of stupidity -- I'd guess a (false) pride, tied to your narcissism, that prevents you from learning new material because to do so would expose your prior ignorance. This is yet another way in which moral failing keep people stupid.
bmiller: "He admitted " Its position relative to some other object is changing," but "No property of the object is changing." [quality perhaps?]. No such qualification was given in the original statement, hence an equivocation."
Ha. If you think Stardusty was equivocating above you actually don't understand what an equivocation is, still.
Momentum is a physical property. Momentum is NOT changing in an object that is moving uniformly. So what Stardusty wrote above is both a) true, and b) consistent with itself.
bmiller's poor moral character allows him to place another brick of stupid on this, the monument he is building to the ways in which moral deficiencies make people stupider.
bmiller: "So you see? No big bad man is lying to you."
You are consistently dishonest. This dishonesty explains your otherwise inexplicable stupidity. Thank you for revealing the pathological relationship between character and intelligence -- something I had not fully appreciated before I first began online discussions with apologists.
bmiller "But it seems that once again, you've gotten off topic. Must be time for your nap. / When you wake up you may want to try to engage with actual arguments relevant to the topic. / In case you forgot:"
Your narcissism makes you stupider.
I started with your first reference (returning after having recognized it as irrelevant the first time). It remains as I had predicted -- irrelevant to the criticism carefully explicated showing how the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
Apparently, your poor moral character shall doom you to building monuments to your revealed stupidity.
You used quote marks as you (mis)characterized what you thought I had said, and claimed that your mischaracterization was something that I had made explicit.
Learn to read please. I explicitly said I wasn't quoting anyone.
That is how.
Again, learn how to read.
Your quote: That is, a particle initially at rest or in uniform motion in the preferential frame Φ continues in that state unless compelled by forces to change it."
Strawdusty's quote: an object in uniform motion is not changing
If a particle/object is in uniform motion it is not at rest and hence changing. The state that it is in is not changing. The quote from Strawdusty is clearly wrong. If he wants to correct it by saying that an object's state of motion is not changing it would then make more sense.
Ha. If you think Stardusty was equivocating above you actually don't understand what an equivocation is, still.
Then you can't read. The definition, what Strawdusty actually wrote, and my explanation of how it was an equivocation all escapes you. No surprise.
I started with your first reference (returning after having recognized it as irrelevant the first time). It remains as I had predicted -- irrelevant to the criticism carefully explicated showing how the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
No Little Cal. You merely claimed it was irrelevant without giving a reason why. That's called a mere assertion. If you have a substantial argument, I'll consider a response but it will have to be better than this latest drivel.
So Little Cal, please pay attention during reading time at your school. It seems this level of discussion is beyond your present level.
Me: "You used quote marks as you (mis)characterized what you thought I had said, and claimed that your mischaracterization was something that I had made explicit." bmiller: "Learn to read please. I explicitly said I wasn't quoting anyone. / That is how. / Again, learn how to read."
I do know how to read. After I pointed out that had dishonestly represented that YOUR terms and confusion were somehow mine (or Stardusty's), you backpedaled to try and claim that you meant to use the quotes to show that you were using the term "uniformly changing" as a technical term (False -- "uniformly changing" is not a technical term), or used in an unusual way (False -- "uniformly changing does not have a standard use, as it is a nonsensical term of your confused invention).
So, I do know how to read. You don't know how to be honest, or write clearly. Which makes sense, because your dishonesty prevents you from thinking clearly. As I have pointed out, your muddled and stupid thinking seems inextricably woven into your identifiable character flaws. Everything you write merely underlines how reliable this explanation seems.
bmiller: "If a particle/object is in uniform motion it is not at rest and hence changing."
Nope. An object in uniform motion is not changing. You don't understand basic physics. (Quelle surprise!)
bmiller: "The state that it is in is not changing."
An object without a change in state is an object that is not changing. You are apparently too stupid to apprehend that an object in uniform motion is an object that is not changing.
bmiller: "The quote from Strawdusty is clearly wrong. If he wants to correct it by saying that an object's state of motion is not changing it would then make more sense."
Nope. You are clearly stupid. An object in uniform motion is not changing its state, despite changes in position from one reference frame to the next. Your inability to apprehend this (basic) tenet of classical physics is best explained as a result of your narcissism, which apparently permits you to believe that anything you can't comprehend is mistaken.
bmiller: "No Little Cal. You merely claimed it was irrelevant without giving a reason why."
Nope. I first pointed out (here: August 11, 2017 6:12 AM) that the same stupidity that allows you think and write as you do is the same stupidity that will prevent you from understanding things like coherence, relevance, and intellectual value.
Then I pointed out (here: August 11, 2017 10:21 AM) that your comment -- which consisted almost entirely of a quote from Aquinas -- does NOT address the criticism explicated here concerning the obvious failings of the First Way -- that the First Way uses muddled language, equivocates, is unsound, contradicts itself, and is ad hoc (as specifically explicated in the links that Stardusty provided above).
So, you are just a little liar. Which partially explains how you have come this far in life and remain so broadly stupid.
No you don't. You still claim I was trying to quote someone after I demonstrated you don't know that quotation marks can be used in multiple ways. If I had wanted to attribute a quote to someone I would have explicitly done that, as I always do when I intend to.
This is priceless and I'm definitely adding it to my list:
Cal: An object without a change in state is an object that is not changing. You are apparently too stupid to apprehend that an object in uniform motion is an object that is not changing.
Nope. You are clearly stupid. An object in uniform motion is not changing its state, despite changes in position from one reference frame to the next. Your inability to apprehend this (basic) tenet of classical physics is best explained as a result of your narcissism, which apparently permits you to believe that anything you can't comprehend is mistaken.
It is very entertaining to witness Little Cal claim that a thing moving from position A to position B over time is *motion*, but it is not really *motion* if the motion is uniform, in which case it is called a *state* which somehow means that no change has occurred (tell that to the billiard ball at position B). I wonder if he will figure out for himself what Newton meant by the word *state*.
Then I pointed out (here: August 11, 2017 10:21 AM) that your comment -- which consisted almost entirely of a quote from Aquinas -- does NOT address the criticism explicated here concerning the obvious failings of the First Way -- that the First Way uses muddled language, equivocates, is unsound, contradicts itself, and is ad hoc (as specifically explicated in the links that Stardusty provided above).
Little Cal. Try to focus. Quotes from Aquinas are relevant. Especially the section from the Summa Contra Gentiles that give the background for the First Way. Especially when the specific quote that addresses a specific bogus complaint before the complaint was even raised. The fact that you make unfounded assertions notwithstanding.
Since you can't address the first one, here is the list of the rest.
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM March 19, 2017 12:31 PM July 22, 2017 2:39 PM January 22, 2017 6:28 PM February 12, 2017 5:59 PM February 05, 2017 11:23 AM February 07, 2017 11:25 AM February 12, 2017 4:48 PM May 23, 2017 8:40 PM June 30, 2017 7:50 AM March 19, 2017 2:14 PM July 08, 2017 8:23 PM May 07, 2017 12:07 PM May 11, 2017 12:19 PM May 18, 2017 8:37 PM July 02, 2017 12:50 PM July 09, 2017 7:53 AM July 11, 2017 12:25 PM August 06, 2017 1:11 PM August 06, 2017 1:11 PM
July 10, 2017 at 8:46 PM July 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM July 11, 2017 at 8:40 AM July 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM July 13, 2017 at 10:19 AM July 13, 2017 at 7:36 PM July 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM July 16, 2017 at 1:40 PM July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM July 18, 2017 at 7:53 PM July 18, 2017 at 8:01 PM July 19, 2017 at 5:39 AM July 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM July 20, 2017 at 9:26 PM July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM July 22, 2017 at 11:20 PM July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM July 23, 2017 at 9:44 PM July 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM
bmiller: “You still claim I was trying to quote someone…”
Nope. I pointed out that you used quote marks inappropriately, giving the false impression that you were quoting the skeptics here. In fact, the quote marks were around words of your invention.
When you tried to justify their use as appropriate by falsely claiming that the quotes indicated that you were using technical terms (False -- "uniformly changing" is not a technical term), or that they indicated that they were used in an unusual way (False -- "uniformly changing does not have a standard use, as it is a nonsensical term of your confused invention).
Once again, your dishonesty has made you so stupid that you deny the obvious and demonstrable fact described above. Thus, your dishonesty makes you stupider.
bmiller: “It is very entertaining to witness Little Cal claim that a thing moving from position A to position B over time is *motion*…”
It’s not very interesting, really — it’s actually very basic, and true.
bmiller: “…but it is not really *motion* if the motion is uniform, in which case it is called a *state* which somehow means that no change has occurred (tell that to the billiard ball at position B). I wonder if he will figure out for himself what Newton meant by the word *state*.”
You were doing okay at the start, but then you showed the extent to which basic material is too much for you. State refers to the state of an object (what Newton called a “body”), which in uniform motion does not change, even though an object’s position in a broader system is changing (uniformly).
This is all basic physics stuff, and your inability to make sense of it shows the extent to which your poor moral character has made you so stupid you can’t digest what high school sophomores normally learn.
bmiller: “Quotes from Aquinas are relevant. Especially the section from the Summa Contra Gentiles that give the background for the First Way. Especially when the specific quote that addresses a specific bogus complaint before the complaint was even raised.”
Indicate which criticism of the First Way you are addressing, and actually explicate how the quote from Aquinas refutes that criticism.
Or go on making false and meaningless claims like the above, or pasting your silly list that any random sampling will quickly reveal to be more of the scattered and irrelevant defense offered by you here. Whereas your comments reliably signify nothing, I think it’s illuminating to see how an intellect can be trapped in a prison of stupid fashioned from the walls of poor moral character.
Nope. I pointed out that you used quote marks inappropriately, giving the false impression that you were quoting the skeptics here. In fact, the quote marks were around words of your invention.
No, you accused me of lying. Why, that's you. Bmiller, the liar. The liar who puts "uniformly changing" in quotes as if he is citing someone other than his own confused mind, made more stupid by his moral deficiencies -- in particular a willingness to be dishonest, and accept dishonesty.
Projection much?
You were doing okay at the start, but then you showed the extent to which basic material is too much for you. State refers to the state of an object (what Newton called a “body”), which in uniform motion does not change, even though an object’s position in a broader system is changing (uniformly).
Try to focus although that is hard for children.
You have just agreed with me that "uniformly changing" can have 2 senses. With respect to change in position over time and when considered as a *state*.
Now, read this again: Strawdusty's quote: an object in uniform motion is not changing
If a particle/object is in uniform motion it is not at rest and hence changing. The state that it is in is not changing. The quote from Strawdusty is clearly wrong. If he wants to correct it by saying that an object's state of motion is not changing it would then make more sense.
Ha. If you think Stardusty was equivocating above you actually don't understand what an equivocation is, still. August 16, 2017 11:00 AM
Did you notice the word "state" in his quote? I didn't either. Since no such distinction was made, it was an equivocation. I'm glad you now agree with me.
*For those with reading diabilities*, I purposely put "uniformly changing" and "state" in quotation marks, because the phrases are technical phrases in the context of this discussion.
Indicate which criticism of the First Way you are addressing, and actually explicate how the quote from Aquinas refutes that criticism.
Already did that. Indicate that you can actually read. Ooops, sorry, you just indicated that you can't.
Or go on making false and meaningless claims like the above, or pasting your silly list that any random sampling will quickly reveal to be more of the scattered and irrelevant defense offered by you here. Whereas your comments reliably signify nothing, I think it’s illuminating to see how an intellect can be trapped in a prison of stupid fashioned from the walls of poor moral character.
This is hilarious! This is why I stick around. Right after he demonstrates he can't defend his claim, he makes "false and meaningless claims" that his opponent is "making false and meaningless claims"
Now, read this again: Strawdusty's quote: an object in uniform motion is not changing
" If a particle/object is in uniform motion it is not at rest and hence changing. " --Why do you equate "not at rest" with "changing"?
You say an object "not at rest" is "changing".
Why? What about that object is changing? What property of the object is changing by virtue of its uniform motion?
Mass? Energy? Color? Chemical composition? Temperature?
"If he wants to correct it by saying that an object's state of motion is not changing it would then make more sense." --An object in uniform motion simply is not changing by virtue of its uniform motion.
An accelerating object is changing. A cooling object is changing. A radiating object is changing. An object in uniform motion is not changing.
Name the specific property of the object in uniform motion that is changing by virtue of being in uniform motion.
bmiller: “You have just agreed with me that "uniformly changing" can have 2 senses. With respect to change in position over time and when considered as a *state*.”
Wow. You appear too dishonest (or made too stupid by your dishonesty) to apprehend the plain text of my writing. In case you were confused by my parsing of the language above, you should have been clued in by writing that YOUR term “uniformly changing” is “a nonsensical term of your confused invention.” You are either stupid, or made stupider by your dishonesty. Either way, stupid is your outcome.
Stardusty: “Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing.” bmiller: “If a particle/object is in uniform motion it is not at rest and hence changing. The state that it is in is not changing. The quote from Strawdusty is clearly wrong. If he wants to correct it by saying that an object's state of motion is not changing it would then make more sense” bmiller: “Did you notice the word "state" in his quote? I didn't either. Since no such distinction was made, it was an equivocation. I'm glad you now agree with me.”
Why would I agree with you that an object in uniform motion is changing — that would be stupid. I agree with Stardusty, and the description of modern physics, that for the purposes of describing an object’s properties (and the state that is described by those properties), an object in uniform motion is not changing.
bmiller: “Did you notice the word "state" in his quote? I didn't either. Since no such distinction was made, it was an equivocation. I'm glad you now agree with me.”
Ha. Stardusty uses the terms consistently, and in the ways used in basic (classical) physics. In classical physics momentum is a property of an object, so with an object at rest, or in uniform motion, both are in a constant state of momentum — meaning that their property of momentum is not changing. (When you go from one reference frame to another, p1=p2) You are so stupid that you think that Stardusty is using confusing or equivocating language, but in fact all you are revealing is that you are too stupid to agree to the stipulations of basic (classical) physics.
You think that what Stardusty has written conflicts with basic (classical) physics (it does not). You think that Stardusty’s straightforward descriptions of reality, which conform with basic physics, are an example of equivocation. In fact, you reveal that your dishonesty and inconsistency and narcissism are the best explanation for the your writing stupid conclusions, like “since no distinction was made, it was an equivocation.” (?!?!?!?!?)
bmiller: “*For those with reading diabilities*, I purposely put "uniformly changing" and "state" in quotation marks, because the phrases are technical phrases in the context of this discussion.”
What a sad little weasel you are. Technical phrases, as the examples from the link you provided make clear, are jargon or lexicon that are not commonly understood outside the community that uses it — not nonsensical terms of your own invention.
Sad.
Me: “Indicate which criticism of the First Way you are addressing, and actually explicate how the quote from Aquinas refutes that criticism.“ bmiller: “Already did that. Indicate that you can actually read. Ooops, sorry, you just indicated that you can’t.”
It’s obvious why you indicate which criticism of the First Way you are addressing, and actually explicate how the quote from Aquinas refutes that criticism — because you know how shabby real srutiny will reveal you supposed rebuttal to actually be.
Sad.
bmiller: “This is hilarious! This is why I stick around. / Right after he demonstrates he can't defend his claim, he makes "false and meaningless claims" that his opponent is "making false and meaningless claims"
Amazaing. Exactly one paragraph below you refusing to defend your claim (that your comment somehow offered a meaningful rebuttal of the First Way), you accuse someone else of doing what you just did.
Name the specific property of the object in uniform motion that is changing by virtue of being in uniform motion.
You said it yourself:
--Not precisely what I said. "an object in uniform motion is not changing". The object is not changing. Its position relative to some other object is changing, but the object is not changing. No property of the object is changing.
You have correctly attributed to the object "Its position relative to some other object" by using the possessive form of *it*. This position is not independent of the object and would not exist if the object did not exist and so is a *property* of the object. The change of this property of the object (Aristotle called it local motion) is what physics now defines as *motion*.
You are merely in agreement with Aristotle that the motion of a existing material object can have different senses. Local motion, and qualities can change independently of each other while neither are substantial changes to the object.
But I should point out to other readers that you do not defend your contention on the basis that uniform motion is a *state*, but instead that uniform motion is not a change of the object *full stop*. While this is odd, that seems to be your position.
I understand the general trajectory of this argument and I've addressed it before. Most recently here: August 09, 2017 8:29 AM
3,162 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 2201 – 2400 of 3162 Newer› Newest»SteveK said...
July 20, 2017 7:45 AM
I see you interspersed a few of the date tags I provided with your straw men. Do you think that is some sort of argumentation?
You claim to be a mechanical engineer, unlikely on the evidence, but supposing your story is true, how have you held any job in your supposed field given your manifest inability to form a relevant argument?
What happens when you receive a specification or a statement of work? How do you perform a failure analysis and argue you have identified and corrected the root cause? How do you write your design verification report? How do you pull out the shalls and argue you have satisfied them?
In those instances the object is to demonstrate you have satisfied the requirements and to provide a rationale for each assertion.
A counter argument is much the same.
1. Read the argument carefully.
2. Identify which specific lines of reasoning you consider to be faulty.
3. Use specific quotes in context or accurate summations the author would agree with, and then show the specific manner in which the author's rationale is flawed.
4. Sum up showing the ways that the stepwise failure of the author's various points invalidates the author's conclusion.
Note: Casting out one liner strawmen is not a part of such a process.
>> Do you think that is some sort of argumentation?
It's my criticism of the various criticisms offered by the skeptics. My criticisms demonstrate that the skeptics have not put forward anything that succeeds in undermining the FW argument.
>> Read the argument carefully.
Cal said they are not arguments, they are criticisms. You've failed to understand that basic fact.
Cal: "One doesn't provide an "argument" that the an argument doesn't abide by the rules of good argument...One provides criticism"
>> then show the specific manner in which the author's rationale is flawed.
That's what my criticisms did. I took your lengthy criticisms and the lengthy criticisms we gave in response and boiled them down to short, easily digestible sentences.
If you want to read the details behind each one, go back and search the comments. It's all there.
stevek: "Cal said they are not arguments, they are criticisms. You've failed to understand that basic fact.
Cal: "One doesn't provide an "argument" that the an argument doesn't abide by the rules of good argument...One provides criticism"
And (what a surprise!) you fail to quote me in full.
I wrote: "One doesn't provide an "argument" that the an argument doesn't abide by the rules of good argument. You fail to even understand that basic fact. One provides criticism -- criticism that shows how an argument fails to abide by the rules of good argument."
Do you see what you left off -- and do you see how your little bizarre side quips fail to do what valid criticism must do -- show how an argument fails to abide by the rules of good argument. All you've done is declare your inner thought process (a little embarrassingly, I might add) as if your befuddlement resembles a cogent response to the actual, detailed criticisms provided.
Sad.
A response to an attempt that purports to show how an argument fails to abide by the rules of good argument, succeeds in neutralizing/defeating the attempt if the response can explain where the authors thinking goes wrong.
That's what our responses have done. They've explained where your criticisms go wrong, leaving them empty and powerless.
stevek: "A response to an attempt that purports to show how an argument fails to abide by the rules of good argument, succeeds in neutralizing/defeating the attempt if the response can explain where the authors thinking goes wrong. "
Which you didn't do. At all.
stevek: "That's what our responses have done. They've explained where your criticisms go wrong, leaving them empty and powerless."
What you've done resembles sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nah nah nah I can't hear you and so I've neutralized your criticism." That's exactly what it resembles.
Short replies work ONLY if they unfold consistently into their long forms (without contradiction). Your replies do not. Actually, your replies seem to show that you don't even understand the criticism -- which makes sense, because it's seemed throughout that you don't actually understand argument.
For instance, starting with your first response:
stevek: "[SteveK representing this criticism (below)*:] o) God must have moved when he changed his mind criticism ([stevek:]not an example of potency being reduced to act)"
If "potency being reduced to act" doesn't involve changing one's mind then "potency being reduced to act" fails to describe all change (motion). If minds can be in motion (change) by themselves, then all things that change are not moved by another. So, done. The argument fails to even get started, contradicting itself when it declares that "all that is moved is moved by another." Except minds, which can move things. So, nevermind.
Fail.
reason this fails is that it attempts to switch the argument from one in which the argument is consistent with reality (changing a mind is an example of change / motion) into one in which the argument is merely consistent with an arbitrary definition. Because the definition is arbitrary (
* begin original criticism
(2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another.
(5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:
Response- The speculated god would have to have "moved" (changed or altered or undergone some sort of process) in order to be a "mover". For example if this speculated god made a decision to “move” the substances of existence that decision itself was a “movement”. If this speculated god was motionless and then made a decision it “moved” itself. Even if no decision was made, if the speculated god was motionless and then “moved” in any sense it must have “moved” itself.
Thus on a previously motionless god (5) is incompatible with (2).
Alternatively, on a god eternally in motion the following is violated:
(4) But this cannot proceed to infinity:
In either case, Aquinas defeats his own argument through self-contradiction.
* end original criticism
The rest of your "responses" fail similarly.
>> If minds can be in motion (change) by themselves, then all things that change are not moved by another.
Who said God's mind is in motion? That is a separate discussion and argument that Aquinas gets into elsewhere. My response was to simple point out that Dusty is wrong about God's mind being "reduced to act" when God changes his mind.
If the FW argument is valid, God's nature has no potential to be actualized - which means God's mind cannot possibly be an example of "change" per the definition that Aquinas states at the beginning.
Dusty's criticism only has power if you assume the FW argument is invalid. That's bad thinking. The criticism fails on the basis of begging the question.
SteveK said...
"My response was to simple point out that Dusty is wrong about God's mind being "reduced to act""
--Apparently the Thomist defines "change" as a "reduction from potential to act".
I'm just speaking in the Thomistic vernacular for the sake of discussion.
" when God changes his mind."
--You just said god changes his mind.
You just said god changes.
If change is defined as reduction to act then god had a reduction to act.
" If the FW argument is valid, God's nature has no potential to be actualized - which means God's mind cannot possibly be an example of "change" per the definition that Aquinas states at the beginning."
--You just said god changes his mind, yet now you say he doesn't change his mind.
Which is it?
July 22, 2017 10:59 AM
This is just such a typical example of muddled apologist thinking:
stevek: "Dusty's criticism only has power if you assume the FW argument is invalid."
Nope. Stardusty's criticism has power if it points out how the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. What you call an "assumption" is actually the determination that follows -- that the First Way is a bad argument, BECAUSE it fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
Stardusty: "That's bad thinking."
Actually, Stardusty's comments are largely a kind of tutorial on how think critically.
Stardusty: "The criticism fails on the basis of begging the question."
Begging the question is a violation of the rules of good argument. Apparently you have no idea what begging the question means, however, as Stardusty's criticism does not assume that the First Way is a bad argument -- it demonstrates how the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
@Strawdusty,
" If the FW argument is valid, God's nature has no potential to be actualized - which means God's mind cannot possibly be an example of "change" per the definition that Aquinas states at the beginning."
--You just said god changes his mind, yet now you say he doesn't change his mind.
Which is it?
This objection has been addressed multiple times and the quote below has been provided multiple times.
It is from the link provided in the very first comment on this topic.
The First Way is an argument from the observed motion of material objects made out of parts. Per Aristotle the act/potency distinction applies to things made out of parts. So in the sense Aristotle uses to describe motion of material objects made of form and matter, God is unmoved since He is not a combination of form and matter. That does not mean that God is incapable of knowing, willing or loving.
[10] It is to be noted, however, that Plato, who held that every mover is moved [Phaedrus], understood the name motion in a wider sense than did Aristotle. For Aristotle understood motion strictly, according as it is the act of what exists in potency inasmuch as it is such. So understood, motion belongs only to divisible bodies, as it is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. According to Plato, however, that which moves itself is not a body. Plato understood by motion any given operation, so that to understand and to judge are a kind of motion. Aristotle likewise touches upon this manner of speaking in the De anima [III, 7]. Plato accordingly said that the first mover moves himself because he knows himself and wills or loves himself. In a way, this is not opposed to the reasons of Aristotle. There is no difference between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle.
Blogger bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
--You just said god changes his mind, yet now you say he doesn't change his mind.
Which is it?
" This objection has been addressed multiple times and the quote below has been provided multiple times."
--Nope, SteveK made these 2 statements
" when God changes his mind."
and then in the same post
"God's mind cannot possibly be an example of "change""
So god, according to SteveK, both does and does not change his mind.
God, according to SteveK, both does and does not change.
Have you heard of the principle of non-contradiction?
Which is it?
@Stardusty, if you start out with this understanding:
1. Apologists are INCAPABLE of considering that the First Way might be a bad argument
then the pathetic non sequiturs and failures to grasp the objections (according to the rules of good argument) all make some sense.
I mention this as explanation for the obvious disconnect between the criticisms of the First Way offered here and the responses offered by the apologists; apologists don't work from the ground up (using the rules of good argument) -- they only proceed from the unshakeable belief that the First Way must somehow a good argument, and THEN search for some response that they imagine addresses the real problems offered by the criticism.
For apologists, a BAD response answers a GOOD criticism.
With regard to the First Way, a BAD response is something written by a believer that FAILS to actually negate the criticism, but does acknowledge it. These BAD responses will always be accepted by apologists, and that is because they falsely believe that the First Way must be a good argument.
It's basically part of the mindset that prioritizes hierarchy, and that is why apologists inevitably fetishize past thinkers; by fetishizing the thoughts of past thinkers over the rational tools available to all modern thinkers, apologists believe they have gained respect and prestige in the group to which they want to belong, while binding themselves into a world in which they can't think for themselves.
That's the (obvious) subtext to these discussions. Still, I thought it might worth mentioning.
Cal Metzger said...
@Stardusty, if you start out with this understanding:
" 1. Apologists are INCAPABLE of considering that the First Way might be a bad argument"
--Manifestly, among the small handful here, outwardly, that seems to be the case.
Another possibility is the odd enjoyment of being an obscurantist, evidenced by such techniques as intentionally dropping critical qualifiers to reverse the meaning of a statement so that the opposite can be rebutted.
Or as grod does, merely drop by from time to time to throw out some pointless critical anger, claim to be a mathematical physicist and thus know exactly how we atheists are all wrong, and then depart without ever providing any actual arguments or evidence for any of his claims.
Not all apologists are Thomists, for example W L Craig considers the Thomistic god "unintelligible", and takes the approach of asserting a cosmological first mover, as opposed to an ontological first mover as Haines, Feser, and others do.
Also, I have noticed, as I mentioned before, that when these apologists feel they are in an educator role they actually become somewhat reasonable (see the aftermath of July 02, 2017 2:20 PM), at least temporarily, but it wears off, they can't keep it up.
So, in some segments of their brains there is a capacity for reason, but is is an interesting fact that on certain subjects the rationality of the theist suffers a major breakdown or blockage.
@Strawdusty,
So god, according to SteveK, both does and does not change his mind.
God, according to SteveK, both does and does not change.
Have you heard of the principle of non-contradiction?
Yes, the principle is per Wikipedia:
"It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time"
SteveK has stated that change in the sense of act/potency is not the same sense of God's knowing, willing, loving. So I see no contradiction.
Me: "With regard to the First Way, a BAD response is something written by a believer that FAILS to actually negate the criticism, but does acknowledge it. These BAD responses will always be accepted by apologists, and that is because they falsely believe that the First Way must be a good argument."
bmiller, repeating the pattern I had just previously explicated: "SteveK has stated that change in the sense of act/potency is not the same sense of God's knowing, willing, loving. So I see no contradiction."
Sic.
@bmiller
Yup. The word "change" is used differently in each instance. Dusty is referring to a reduction from potency to act, I am not. One is discussed in the FW argument, the other is not. Dusty's criticism is empty and powerless.
Me: "With regard to the First Way, a BAD response is something written by a believer that FAILS to actually negate the criticism, but does acknowledge it. These BAD responses will always be accepted by apologists, and that is because they falsely believe that the First Way must be a good argument."
Now stevek, repeating the pattern I had just recently explicated above: "Yup. The word "change" is used differently in each instance. Dusty is referring to a reduction from potency to act, I am not. One is discussed in the FW argument, the other is not. Dusty's criticism is empty and powerless."
It's really kind of weird to me how telling others your prediction of how it is they will fail still elicits the same failure from them. I would have guessed that the behavior would change slightly, if only to deny the implications of being trapped in a predictable and failed pattern.
SteveK
"The word "change" is used differently in each instance. One is an example of a reduction from potency to act, the other is not. "
So
"change is a reduction from potency to act"
and
"change is not a reduction from potency to act"
SteveK, uhm, doesn't it ever get tiresome continually contradicting yourself?
Ontological Bedrock of Quicksand
An "essential" causal series, in the Aristotelian-Thomistic sense, has no physical realization. Under A-T thought in an "essential" series cause and effect are viewed as instrumental as well as concurrent, coincident, or simultaneous. Such concurrence is, in fact, a mere artifact of human perception lacking any actual existent realization.
Under A-T thought an "accidental" series is a temporal series wherein the cause is presently separated from the present effect and is no longer instrumental, although it can be essential in the common sense of the word “essential” but not in the A-T sense of the word “essential”. This concept of causality is also deeply flawed by human perceptual artifacts, but the basic idea that a series of causes and effects occur over time makes every real causal series an "accidental" series in that respect.
What would it mean for a cause to be concurrent, or simultaneous, with the effect? Humans tend to assign the title of cause to one object process and the title of effect to another object process. So, one might say that when the cue ball impacts the 8 ball the cue ball is the cause and the motion of the 8 ball is the effect. Under A-T thought this is considered "accidental" since it is a temporal process such that even if we got rid of the cue ball while the 8 ball was still rolling the 8 ball would continue rolling nevertheless.
If, on the other hand, one uses a stick to continuously push the cue ball along then under A-T thought this is considered an "essential" series because it is imagined that the continuation of rolling is assigned the title of effect, the stick is considered an instrument, and the human pushing the stick is considered a cause. In the A-T oriented brain it is imagined that the cause is thus concurrent with the effect.
Such A-T thought harkens back to centuries past when analysis of cause and effect were limited to simply watching ordinary objects and thinking about them. What was not appreciated in centuries past is that the continued motion of the 8 ball is not a single effect, nor is the human a single cause, rather, the human is composed of a vast collection of internal causal influences, on the order of some 10^27 atoms organized as some 10^13 cells, all engaged in an enormous set of continual temporal causal sequences.
Similarly, the motion of the cue ball is not only one effect, rather, the cue ball is just as much of an instrument as the stick, transmitting energy to the molecules of the air and the felt in an vast number of temporal causal sequences.
Let's examine one simplified causal series in this vast collection. A single oxygen molecule travels from the outside air, into a lung, through the tissue membrane, and into a red blood cell. That cell travels through the bloodstream to a muscle where in combination with an organic molecule it transfers a finite amount of energy, enough to move the hand a small increment, say, a nanometer. The stick then moves a nanometer, which in turn moves the cue ball a nanometer, which in turn bumps into several air molecules, accelerates those air molecules, and transfers that finite amount of energy into kinetic energy of those air molecules. It should be readily apparent that this causal series is temporal and in A-T terms "accidental".
(cont.)
Every so-called "essential" series is in fact "accidental" upon more thorough examination, being made up of a combination of a vast number of minute “accidental” temporal causal sequences. The assignment of title of cause and effect to whole systems of causes and effects is an approximation of analytical convenience that leads to qualitative analytical errors when the quantity of approximation reduces a vast number to just a few, without due awareness of the pitfalls of such approximations. The notion of an ongoing motion as an effect is an artifact of the human perception of what is thought of as the present, which is not really the present moment, rather, it is a model in the brain of recent past events and imagined near future events all internally represented as members of a temporally static concept of the present.
To what extent are cause and effect concurrent or simultaneous? From Newton's fluxions, to Russell’s objections to the infinitesimal, to the definition of calculus by use of limit expressions there is a long and controversial debate about the validity of the notion of an infinitesimal. The infinitesimal is perhaps loosely described as being infinity small yet not equal to zero. In calculus it is commonly thought to be what is represented by dx, or dy etc.
Simultaneity does not extend beyond the infinitesimal. Since a causal series is more than one event or a process over some finite time no series can be contained within the infinitesimal, since any 2 events a finite time apart can have their event time difference further divided into an arbitrarily large number of subdivisions.
Thus no causal series is simultaneous or concurrent. No causal series is "essential".
Now, it is argued with respect to A-T assertions of a causal series, such as Aquinas describes in his First Way, no attempt is being made to describe the cosmological origins of motion, since Aristotle held that the universe is eternal and motion is eternal, and Aquinas also asserted an eternal universe. It is imagined that the true necessity for a first mover is ontological in nature. That is, the A-T oriented brain imagines a need for an ongoing sustaining cause for both motion and material existence.
It is argued that such an ontological series is "essential" and cannot extend to infinity. In fact, on the modern sciences of motion and conservation of matter/energy there is no need for any ontological cause or ontological series at all, much less a consideration of an infinite such series to be rejected in favor of a finite series terminating in an imagined first mover.
(cont.)
On conservation of matter/energy to merely persist in existing is no change; therefore no change requires no changer.
On conservation of matter/energy to merely persist in existing is no motion; therefore no motion requires no mover.
On modern science of motion including inertia merely persisting in uniform motion is no change for the object in motion; therefore no change requires no changer.
On modern science the call for a choice between an infinite ontological series versus a finite ontological series in the present moment is a false dichotomy and utterly unnecessary. No sustaining cause is called for at all.
When things don’t change then things don’t change. Yes, I realize that is tautological, but that is my point. The Thomist demands an explanation for this tautology. His explanation is that when things don’t change an unchanged changer is continuously changing them to not change.
When things don’t change they continue as they are, it is plainly apparent.
Of course things do change in some respects, for example, acceleration, change in shape, and change in chemical arrangements. All such changes are necessarily temporal processes, calling for a temporal causal regress, and thus no ontological cause.
Thus, the very notion of an “essential” series is an error of human perceptual artifacts, while the call for an ontological causal agent or series is without rational merit, rendering the Thomistic worldview irreparably erroneous to its core, owing to the falsity of these foundational principles.
>> "SteveK, uhm, doesn't it ever get tiresome continually contradicting yourself?"
I'm clarifying my words. Only an idiot like yourself would continue to rely on his original misunderstanding once a clarifying comment has been offered. Rather than continue to be an idiot like yourself, ask questions.
1a: change is to give a different position, course, or direction to
2a: change is not 1a
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change
Oh, dear God, the horror. Merriam Webster continues to publish contradictions. It must get tiresome.
@Strawdusty,
Why re-publish all your posts from Dr Feser's blog without my responses?
For those interested in the conversation in context just click here.
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
" Why re-publish all your posts from Dr Feser's blog "
--They are not all my posts, nor are they in any way specific or limited to any single blog. I am developing a number of examples, wordings, and arguments, all of which are mine to share in whatever arrangement I think is best.
"without my responses?"
--Your responses are without rational merit and do not warrant re-posting.
@Strawdusty,
Of course it's up to you to post whatever you want and share it with the world.
It's also your choice to ignore counter arguments without addressing them.
But it seems like duplication of effort to post almost the exact same stuff on 2 blogs at the least, and a shame that you didn't care to share the ongoing conversation with readers of this blog. Other's interested in "learning per se" could benefit.
If defenders of the First Way did such a thing, I'm pretty sure they would be accused of dishonesty by some.
@bmiller
I've never encountered anyone who claims that cause/effect are not simultaneous. That means a cause produces no effect. None. Zero. Nada. If there is no simultaneous effect, why does one appear later, much later or not at all? At T=0, the cause is literally doing nothing so why is there any effect? Makes no sense.
stevek: "I've never encountered anyone who claims that cause/effect are not simultaneous."
When you hang out with apologists, and have never taken basic science courses, and for some reason feel compelled to lie about your expertise (laughably claiming that you are a mechanical engineer, which is irreconcilable with your comments, including your last one), then it's no wonder you live in such a sadly ignorant and confused state.
stevek: "At T=0, the cause is literally doing nothing so why is there any effect? Makes no sense."
A single reference frame alone gives no information whatsoever regarding motion. Single reference frames, by definition, do nothing.
Ignorance, plus deceit, plus stupidity. The magical soup from which apologists emerge.
I agree motion occurs over time. If there is no effect occurring at T=0 or T=1 or at any time T=n then what causes the motion over the timeframe T0 to T=n? That's the part I don't understand.
Said another way, if all single timeframes "do nothing" (your words) then how do several "nothings " produce something?
stevek: "Said another way, if all single timeframes "do nothing" (your words) then how do several "nothings " produce something?"
Because a single reference frame provides no information regarding motion. Two or more reference frames could provide information about motion (assuming there is a difference between the two frames).
Doing = motion. Motion = more than one reference frame. Reference frames aren't themselves in motion -- they are the points between which motion occurs.
It's endlessly funny how you seem to think that rudimentary knowledge like t his should be regarded as a mysterious trap that's waiting to somehow turn on you in an unexpected way. Which, if you're an apologist, I suppose it probably is.
Pay attention. I'm talking about an effect. You are talking about a motion. Two different things.
Motion is one type of effect that occurs over time. A cause acting on a body produces an effect at T=0.
stevek: "Pay attention. I'm talking about an effect. You are talking about a motion. Two different things."
There is no "effect" without motion. You are an idiot.
stevek: "Motion is one type of effect that occurs over time."
All effects occur over time, else they are not an effect. You are an idiot.
stevek: "A cause acting on a body produces an effect at T=0."
Only in reference to a frame at t=0-1. You are an idiot.
To be clear, you are hopelessly ignorant. You appear hopelessly stupid. And you are a liar.
Which is to say that you are an apologist. Congratulations on representing your type so well.
@SteveK,
I've never encountered anyone who claims that cause/effect are not simultaneous.
I suspect that if you had claimed they *weren't* simultaneous according the First Way you would have been ridiculed for that position.
After all, we've been told that water doesn't really freeze, inanimate objects move themselves (or nothing moves them or that nothing moves period), that present tense NECESSARILY involves the past and so on. Not many people would choose to go down with the ship based on these positions.
I am interested in how people come to think the things they think and say the things they say. This has been pretty entertaining for me.
@SteveK,
The thing is, that an essentially ordered series does not rely on the concept of simultaneity, but instead on the instrumentality of the inert members of the series being moved by the first mover.
The hand stick stone illustration is meant to demonstrate that the stick, being powerless to move anything on it's own, is only instrumental in moving the stone. In the illustration, it is the hand that is responsible for the movement of the stick and stone. We've seem this also in the train free body diagram.
Both illustrations are to show that as long as the force is active, the instrumental elements of the series stay in motion regardless if that time is long or short.
The only reason to stress that it relates to motion in the present tense is to distinguish it from an accidentally ordered series, the stock example being the grandfather being responsible for the father being responsible for the son.
In an essentially ordered series like the hand-stick-stone series, only the hand has the power to cause change. In an accidentally ordered series, each member has the power to cause change independently. So the grandfather does not need to be present for the father to beget the son since the father has the power independent of the grandfather.
You all should follow the link to Dr Feser's blog and follow Strawdusty and I over there.
Here is a video explaining this.
Highlights:
17:00 motion
19:00 potential / actuality
20:00-26:50 do things change? Parmenides- act/potency as an answer
26:50 Series distinction discussion starts
28:30 accidentally ordered = not essential
30 hand stick stone essentially ordered series- instrumental members except for 1.
31:40 Members if accidentally ordered series have causal power independently of other members of the series
33:00 Members of essentially ordered series have causal power only instrumentally derived ultimately due to the first member.
34:30 First Way discussion in depth- regarding muscles, nerves, atoms etc
37:00 Caboose being pulled by car being pulled by car etc finally needing the engine.
39:00 Examination of motion level by level, from macro to micro
41:00 Conclusion resulting in Unmoved Mover
42:00 Deductions derived from the conclusion
Me: "A cause acting on a body produces an effect at T=0."
Cal: Only in reference to a frame at t=0-1
Time is infinitely divisible. In the limit, as T1-T0 approaches zero the effect is said to be simultaneous with the cause.
SteveK said...
" I agree motion occurs over time."
--Indeed.
" If there is no effect occurring at T=0 or T=1 or at any time T=n then what causes the motion over the timeframe T0 to T=n? That's the part I don't understand."
--I think you raise a very important point the does indeed call for a very careful explanation and justification.
Simultaneity is intuitive and seems to align with our ordinary experiences. Since I am making the counter intuitive claim I accept the burden of showing how this intuition, an intuition I experience as well, is erroneous.
One way of putting the answer is to say that simultaneity does not extend beyond the concept of the infinitesimal. I hesitate to raise the concept of the infinitesimal because the very notion has been considered dubious since Newton's fluxions to this day. Russell objected very strongly to the very idea and instead insisted on defining calculus in terms of a limit function, which I greatly prefer. But, I honestly have not found the words to describe simultaneity in terms of a limit function so I will lean on the old pedagogical crutch Russell so deplored and cite the concept of the infinitesimal.
Indeed, SteveK, nothing can happen in precisely 0 time, whether that time is called t=0 or t=1 or whatever.
Consider a collision over 1 second. We can describe the net energy transfer over that second, so far no problem, and our intuition tells us cause and effect were simultaneous over that 1 second.
But suppose we divide that time into .5 second and .5 second. If half the energy is transferred in the first half second, and half in the second half now we find that the first half is not simultaneous with the second half. The first half is over and in the past during the second half.
You can easily see that there is no upper bound on the number of divisions one can make, thus leading to the notion of the infinitesimal. Everything outside of the infinitesimal is not simultaneous.
The word "simultaneous" means "at the same time". If 2 events are at the same time then t1 - t2 = 0. However, as you correctly point out, nothing can happen in precisely 0 time.
This is, in my view, a very profound philosophical question, which has in fact been seriously debated for centuries.
However, even though we may question the meaning of the concept of the infinitesimal, it is clear that the Thomistic view of simultaneity is flatly false. The examples of simultaneity commonly provided are demonstrably not simultaneous. Ordinary technological instruments such as high speed video recordings and other means of measuring small periods of time prove conclusively that none of the examples purported by Thomists to be simultaneous are in fact simultaneous.
Therefore, every real observed causal series is demonstrably temporal, and thus "accidental". All examples of a supposed real "essential" series are measurably and provably false.
July 24, 2017 12:13 PM
@bmiller
I was exploring the idea of cause and effect, not necessarily the FW argument - although they are related.
Blogger SteveK
" Time is infinitely divisible. In the limit, as T1-T0 approaches zero the effect is said to be simultaneous with the cause."
--Perhaps in that case the answer will turn out to be that time is quantized. This issue is, of course, by no means settled. But if time is quantized that could be a solution to the riddle of the infinitesimal time.
July 24, 2017 8:23 PM
Dusty
A time delay doesn't demonstrate the FW false. The FW never discusses time, it discusses reducing potency to act. You claim that no essentially ordered series exist, yet the hand/stick/rock example is exactly that and so is a forging press.
SteveK said...
" A time delay doesn't demonstrate the FW false. The FW never discusses time,"
--It proposes a causal series and every causal series is a process over time. If the First Way depends on a causal series that is simultaneous, a so called "essential" series, then the First Way is demonstrably and provably wrong.
" it discusses reducing potency to act. You claim that no essentially ordered series exist, yet the hand/stick/rock example is exactly that and so is a forging press."
--Consider a forging press.
Imagine a high speed video as the hammer (upper die) contacts the red hot steel blank. Each microsecond the soft hot metal is deformed slightly. In the next microsecond another deformation occurs that is not simultaneous with the first, and so on, microsecond by microsecond.
What is "the" effect?
You, and I, and presumably everybody, form a model in our brain of the recent past and the immediately foreseeable future and perceive this as "the present". This is an artifact of human perception, not a true representation of this present moment.
From a human perspective "the" effect is that the blank is stamped, or that there is a process of stamping the blank. Thus the individual assigns a single title of "the" effect to what is demonstrably and measurably a temporal series of separate events.
Each microsecond that passes has a microsecond's worth of motor rotation, hammer travel, and blank deformation. If the process were suddenly halted, say by a machine jam, those effects would not disappear from having occurred, the blank would have the amount of deformation that happened up to the time of the jam, and the other effects simply would not happen at no actual causal loss because they were only imagined to occur in the future.
The notion that the forging of an object from a blank is a single effect is demonstrably and provably false. It only seems that way to an individual owing to our lack of temporal resolution of observation and the way humans build models of recent events to perceive "the present".
The forging of an object from a blank is measurably and provably a long series of "accidental" causes and effects, necessarily a temporal process, and thus necessarily not an "essential" series.
July 24, 2017 10:20 PM
Perhaps this will help explain how modern physics handles the concept of instantaneous speed and velocity.
Spoiler alert...it is routinely used in physics and engineering and it involves cops and speeding cars ☺
Professor Feynman explains instantaneous speed:
See Section 8-2
bmiller: "Perhaps this will help explain how modern physics handles the concept of instantaneous speed and velocity.
Spoiler alert...it is routinely used in physics and engineering and it involves cops and speeding cars"
You're an idiot.
Feynman: "That idea was to take an infinitesimal distance and the corresponding infinitesimal time, form the ratio, and watch what happens to that ratio as the time that we use gets smaller and smaller and smaller."
Infinitesimal does not mean none. Infinitesimal time and distance NECESSARILY involve two points (albeit very small ones).
You have confused the strategy of calculus (involving smaller and smaller slices) to imply that those segments diminish to zero; they do not, the slices merely diminish to infinitesimally smaller segments that allow for precision when calculating a speed at a given point -- by involving points at infinitesimally small distances around that point.
Infinitesimally small ≠ zero
That is your mistake.
On the plus side, you found Feynman. It just seems like you don't understand him even a little. Which is almost a hard thing to do (he's that awesome).
@Cal,
You have confused the strategy of calculus (involving smaller and smaller slices) to imply that those segments diminish to zero;
You will not find anywhere where I implied that time goes to zero in the discussion of instantaneous velocity. That misunderstanding belongs to Strawdusty and you. Oh and Zeno.
I did mention that calculus is a required course for college level physics and that is in order to understand this concept.
bmiller: "You will not find anywhere where I implied that time goes to zero in the discussion of instantaneous velocity."
Of course, you're just a sad little liar. Here's an uninterrupted exchange between you and Stardusty:
bmiller: " Instantaneous velocity is a well known concept in physics."
Stardusty: “—Yes, it is a concept, but in what sense does a thing move in zero time?”
bmiller: “Physicists and engineers routinely calculate instantaneous velocity. It appears that this comes as a surprise to you. If you cannot understand this, you can't fathom the motion discussed in First Way.”
Don't apologists realize that lying is a kind of ignorance, and that those who lie regularly inevitably reveal themselves to be such stunted thinkers?
Apparently not.
@Cal,
bmiller: " Instantaneous velocity is a well known concept in physics."
Stardusty: “—Yes, it is a concept, but in what sense does a thing move in zero time?”
bmiller: “Physicists and engineers routinely calculate instantaneous velocity. It appears that this comes as a surprise to you. If you cannot understand this, you can't fathom the motion discussed in First Way.”
As I said. Zero time is Strawdusty's concept, not mine. As you can plainly see, I disagreed with him.
And btw, the quote you selected came after this one with a link to the Khan Academy video which if one watched it (and understood it) would not have asked such a zero time question in the first place.
@Atheist Gentlemen,
Instantaneous velocity is a well known concept in physics. It seems that you are unaware of this fact.
Here is a video explaining instantaneous velocity.
It helps if one understands calculus but at the 3:30 mark it shows the concept with some non-calculus examples.
June 18, 2017 10:43 AM
bmiller: "As I said. Zero time is Strawdusty's concept, not mine."
Nope. You were the one making an argument for "instantaneous" motion. Motion in zero time is what Stardusty called YOUR concept, the one that you were trying to argue for -- motion in a single instant. Back when you were trying to figure out how to save the First Way from the requirement that if it were to describe motion, it NECESSARILY involves going back in time. Nothing you've pointed to (not a Khan Academy video, not Feynman, contradicts this, nor supports your contention.) Or did you forget that you have been trying to defend the First Way, and the long discredited notion of an essential series, in which you raised the idea of instantaneous motion (motion in one reference frame) in which one could talk about motion in the present without NECESSARILY going back in time.
bmiller: "As you can plainly see, I disagreed with him."
No. You tried to make an argument for motion in zero (instantaneous) time. Stardusty (and I) asked how you would make sense of this concept.
You seem to think that our identifying your problem (incoherence concerning time and it's need for two reference frames) means that we were arguing FOR your problem -- the one in which you tried to invent the idea of instantaneous motion in which "now" is the current reference frame, pretending that any motion described in reference to the current reference doesn't NECESSARILY reference a prior frame.
Sad.
It's hilarious to see Cal making a huge deal out of an irrelevant criticism.
Infinitesimally small ≠ zero = irrelevant
@SteveK,
Right and it is irrelevant in sooo many ways.
@Cal,
Motion in zero time is what Stardusty called YOUR concept,
I never had that concept and if Strawdusty or you attributed it to me you are simply wrong.
I used the well known concept of instantaneous velocity as used in physics to illustrate that motion could be spoken of in the present tense without referring to the ancient past.
The additional illustration of the tension in the coupling of each train car moving the next car illustrates (in the free body diagram) that the force and motion are simultaneous in that particular motion.
But as I've mentioned it is the instrumentality of the moving movers that is doing the work in the First Way, not the simultaneous action. Check out the video I linked above.
And BTW it is only you have been using the phrase "motion in one reference frame". There is a reason for that.
Just the usual housekeeping:
stevek: "It's hilarious to see Cal making a huge deal out of an irrelevant criticism. Infinitesimally small ≠ zero = irrelevant"
bmiller: "Right and it is irrelevant in sooo many ways."
Infinitesimally small is a way of clarifying the fact that all discussion of the motion in the present NECESSARILY requires referring to a past frame (and back, and back, and back, with reference to a First Mover). So, your determination that the distinction is irrelevant displays, yet again, that you don't even understand the argument. Which makes sense, because you also fail to see it's numerous problems.
bmiller: "I never had that concept and if Strawdusty or you attributed it to me you are simply wrong."
You "had that concept" every time you refused (which I think you still do, unless you have changed your position) to admit that any discussion of time in the present refers, necessarily, to a past reference frame.
Your denial of this ramification is what's at issue, and your self-attestation about your own belief is immaterial -- your position entails what you say you deny you believe. Something's gotta give.
My position has always been that we can and do speak about things occurring in the present tense without reference to the ancient past. We all do, physics does and all the examples from physics texts did.
bmiller: "My position has always been that we can and do speak about things occurring in the present tense without reference to the ancient past."
Irrelevant. We are talking about the First Way, and physical reality. And any motion in the present NECESSARILY references a prior reference frame. And discussion about a First Mover precedes through all the relevant reference frames, which NECESSARILY takes us back billions of years.
Your denying this fact demonstrates that you do not sufficiently understand the argument, and your pretense to defending it is made laughable as a result. Reading comments like yours to Stardusty is like watching a caveman try to explain to an aeronautics engineer why a 747 can never fly.
bmiller: "We all do, physics does and all the examples from physics texts did."
You don't understand physics well enough to see how you are wrong -- about how reality works, what compromises language makes, and what approximations and concessions physical descriptions (like Calculus) make. It's actually pretty much all there in the Feynman article you linked to, but it seems to all be over your head.
>> And discussion about a First Mover precedes through all the relevant reference frames, which NECESSARILY takes us back billions of years.
Necessarily?? Given the infinite number of past reference frames that the First Mover could act, why must today's motion necessarily be traced back billions of years ago? Why can't the First Mover act in the first reference frame in the past?
stevek: "Why can't the First Mover act in the first reference frame in the past?"
Because then the FIRST mover wouldn't be the FIRST mover -- it would be a mover.
This is what I mean by this "discussion" being like listening to a caveman try and explain to an aeronautics engineer how a 747 cannot fly; you guys don't even understand the philosophical puzzle, nor basic physics, well enough to even discuss the topic, let alone defend an argument has so many flaws in addressing that puzzle.
A new motion that starts today can't involve the First Mover - today? Where in the FW argument does it say that?
stevek: "A new motion that starts today can't involve the First Mover - today? Where in the FW argument does it say that?"
I think you would benefit from trying to think your questions all the way through before asking them. I think you should be able to answer most of the questions you ask all by yourself if you just thought them through for awhile first.
I've thought about it. The FW doesn't arrive at your "billions of years ago" conclusion as a matter of logical necessity.
stevek: "I've thought about it. The FW doesn't arrive at your "billions of years ago" conclusion as a matter of logical necessity."
If you con't grasp how motion in the present entails the past, then I can't help you.
You can't, as they say, fix stupid.
@Cal,
bmiller: "My position has always been that we can and do speak about things occurring in the present tense without reference to the ancient past."
Irrelevant. We are talking about the First Way, and physical reality. And any motion in the present NECESSARILY references a prior reference frame. And discussion about a First Mover precedes through all the relevant reference frames, which NECESSARILY takes us back billions of years.
Yes, I realize that you think of think the Unmoved Mover of the First Way is about some mover in the distant past timewise. However, you are simply wrong.
The examples I gave are relevant to illustrate the sense of a primary mover used in the First Way. Let's use the hand-stick-stone for an example. The hand has not always been moving the stone. Indeed, it could not possibly move the stick unless it began to exist. I think you would agree that the man and his hand in the example have not existed for billions of years. Since the man, the hand, the stick or stone have not existed for billions of years, then that particular motion could not have reached into the ancient past.
None of the free body diagrams we looked at needed to discuss the ancient past to examine force force and motion. Neither did the Feynman article, nor does calculus. If you think they did, please show me where.
I suggest you watch the Feser video I linked. Also, Strawdusty and I have already engaged in a similar discussion at the link to Feser's blog. Why don't you read that first?
>> "If you con't grasp how motion in the present entails the past, then I can't help you."
I see you have problems understanding simple sentences.
For a motion that started sometime today, show where the FW argument necessarily leads to a First Mover billions of years ago rather than a First Mover much closer to when the motion started.
Mumbling about the past doesn't answer the question.
SteveK said...
" For a motion that started sometime today, show where the FW argument necessarily leads to a First Mover billions of years ago rather than a First Mover much closer to when the motion started."
--"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,"
Sometime today a leaf blew across the road. What moved the leaf? Air molecules, of course. What moved those air molecules? Previous motions of air molecules. And what caused those motions? Previous motions, of course.
Was there ever a time when everything was motionless? Not so long as Earth has had an atmosphere, no, it has always been in a process of highly complex and chaotic motion driven by solar radiation, the rotation of the Earth, the water cycle, and on and on.
Think about it SteveK, how would you arbitrarily stop this consideration of a causal regress, which is necessarily a temporal regress?
A-T to the rescue! They asserted one could not disprove an eternal universe. This solves the problem rather nicely. On A-T thought there need not be a temporal first mover, and the statement of Aquinas "But this cannot go on to infinity," is temporally flatly wrong.
Since every causal series is a temporal series Aquinas is flatly wrong and the First Way collapses under the plain language of the argument itself.
July 26, 2017 8:49 PM
In this post I would like to take a different approach, in that previous posts focused on logical notation, identification of fallacies, and parsing of words into particular orders. Such analytical parsing seems to be natural, such as the work of Francisco Romero Carrasquillo http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html in developing notation, which is typical of how we go about analyzing an argument as to its validity.
Here, however, I will turn to the fundamental worldview of Aquinas, how his view was embedded into the language of the First Way, how aspects of that worldview have been demonstrated to be incorrect in whole or in part, and how the First Way is thus demonstrably unsound in light of modern understandings of natural existence.
In particular I will demonstrate that the Thomistic notion of an “essential” series is illusory, and the notion of an ontological or sustaining cause is both unnecessary and nonsensical.
A Few Definitions
Under A-T thought in an "essential" series cause and effect are viewed as instrumental as well as concurrent, coincident, and simultaneous. Further, in such an “essential” series the cause is essential to the effect in the common usage meaning necessary as well.
An ontological cause, in this sense, is also essential in the sense of regarding the essence, or being. Thus, an ontological cause is a sustaining cause, a cause for the very existence in each moment of the object and of the effect, without which the effect would cease to exist and the object would cease to exist.
Under A-T thought an "accidental" series is a temporal series wherein the prior cause is presently separated from the prior effect and is no longer instrumental, although it can be essential in the common usage of the word “essential” but not in the A-T sense of the word “essential”. Since an “essential” or ontological cause is simultaneous with the effect it is not temporal, therefore every temporal causal series is an “accidental” causal series.
(cont.)
On the Notion of Simultaneity
What would it mean for a cause to be concurrent, or simultaneous, with the effect? Humans tend to assign the title of cause to one object process and the title of effect to another object process. So, one might say that when the cue ball impacts the 8 ball the cue ball is the cause and the motion of the 8 ball is the effect. Under A-T thought this is considered "accidental" since it is a temporal process such that even if we got rid of the cue ball while the 8 ball was still rolling the 8 ball would continue rolling nevertheless.
If, on the other hand, one uses a stick to continuously push the cue ball along then under A-T thought this is considered an "essential" series because it is imagined that the continuation of rolling is assigned the title of effect, the stick is considered an instrument, and the human pushing the stick is assigned the title of a cause. In the A-T oriented brain it is imagined that the cause is thus concurrent with the effect.
Such A-T thought harkens back to centuries past when analysis of cause and effect were limited to simply watching ordinary objects and thinking about them. What was not appreciated in centuries past is that the continued motion of the 8 ball is not a single effect, nor is the human a single cause, rather, the human is composed of a vast collection of internal causal influences, on the order of some 10^27 atoms organized as some 10^13 cells, all engaged in an enormous set of continual temporal causal sequences.
Similarly, the motion of the cue ball is not only one effect, rather, the cue ball is just as much of an instrument as the stick, transmitting energy to the molecules of the air and the felt in an vast number of temporal causal sequences.
Let's examine one simplified causal series in this vast collection. A single oxygen molecule travels from the outside air, into a lung, through the tissue membrane, and into a red blood cell. That cell travels through the bloodstream to a muscle where in combination with an organic molecule it transfers a finite amount of energy, enough to move the hand a small increment, say, a nanometer. The stick then moves a nanometer, which in turn moves the cue ball a nanometer, which in turn bumps into several air molecules, accelerates those air molecules, and transfers that finite amount of energy into kinetic energy of those air molecules. It should be readily apparent that this causal series is temporal and in A-T terms "accidental".
Every so-called "essential" series is in fact "accidental" upon more thorough examination, being made up of a combination of a vast number of minute “accidental” temporal causal sequences. The assignment of title of cause and effect to whole systems of causes and effects is an approximation of analytical convenience that leads to qualitative analytical errors when the quantity of approximation reduces a vast number to just a few, without due awareness of the pitfalls of such approximations. The notion of an ongoing motion as an effect is an artifact of the human perception of what is thought of as the present, which is not really the present moment, rather, it is a model in the brain of recent past events and imagined near future events all internally represented as members of a temporally static concept of the present.
(cont.)
To what extent are cause and effect concurrent or simultaneous? From Newton's fluxions, to Russell’s objections to the infinitesimal, to the definition of calculus by use of limit expressions there is a long and controversial debate about the validity of the notion of an infinitesimal. The infinitesimal is perhaps loosely described as being infinity small yet not equal to zero. In calculus it is commonly thought to be what is represented by dx, or dy etc.
In the limit as t2 – t1 goes to 0 we find the only sense in which we can rationally speak of simultaneity, and this is sometimes referred to as the infinitesimal. Simultaneity cannot exist outside this limit or infinitesimal, since any time outside this limit is in the past and thus no longer simultaneous.
Since a causal series is more than one event or a process over some finite time no series can be contained within the limit or infinitesimal, since any 2 events a finite time apart can have their event time difference further divided into an arbitrarily large number of subdivisions, and therefore violate the very definition of what the limit or infinitesimal is.
Thus no causal series is simultaneous or concurrent. Therefore no causal series is "essential".
Persistence Absent a Changer
Now, in spite of the necessity of a temporal regress the language of the First Way demands, it is argued with respect to A-T assertions of a causal series, such as Aquinas describes in his First Way, no attempt is being made to describe the cosmological origins of motion. It is imagined that the true necessity for a first mover is ontological in nature. That is, the A-T oriented brain imagines a need for an ongoing sustaining cause for both motion and material existence.
It is argued that such an ontological series is "essential" and cannot extend to infinity. In fact, on the modern sciences of motion and conservation of matter/energy there is no need for any ontological cause or ontological series at all, much less a consideration of an infinite such series to be rejected in favor of a finite series terminating in an imagined first mover.
On conservation of matter/energy to merely persist in existing is no change; therefore no change requires no changer.
On conservation of matter/energy to merely persist in existing is no motion; therefore no motion requires no mover.
On modern science of motion including inertia merely persisting in uniform motion is no change for the object in motion; therefore no change requires no changer.
On modern science the call for a choice between an infinite ontological series versus a finite ontological series in the present moment is a false dichotomy and unnecessary. No sustaining cause is called for at all.
When things don’t change then things don’t change. Yes, I realize that is tautological, but that is my point. The Thomist demands an explanation for this tautology. We see that persistence of matter/energy is no change, yet the Thomist asserts it would change if there were not something keeping it in existence, a changer that is itself unchanged. Since this is an asserted changer, the thing being changed is the very thing we observe to not be changing.
Thus the Thomistic explanation becomes that when things don’t change an unchanged changer is continuously changing them to not change.
Those who are not Thomists realize that when things don’t change they continue as they are.
(cont.)
Of course things do change in some respects, for example, acceleration, change in shape, and change in chemical arrangements. All such changes are necessarily temporal processes, calling for a temporal causal regress, and thus no ontological cause.
Against Any Need for an Ontological Changer
To show that an ontological first mover is unnecessary several conditions are addressed.
1. For objects merely persisting in existing there is no change and therefore no necessity for an ontological cause.
2. For objects in uniform motion there is no change therefore no necessity for an ontological cause.
3. For objects undergoing change all such changes are temporal and thus call for a temporal regress of causes, and therefore there is no necessity for an ontological cause.
In all instances there is no necessity for an ontological cause and therefore the First Way is negated.
Where Aquinas Goes Causally Wrong
Having established that the very notion of a first mover for an “essential” series of causes and effects of motion is wrong, it is apparent that the First Way must be not only unsound, but profoundly erroneous to its core. But where does this argument break down specifically?
First, let’s consider the word “simultaneous”, which simply means “at the same time”. Thus, in a simultaneous series of cause and effect t1 – t2 = 0, and t2 – t3 = 0,…and t(n-1) – tn = 0. The time between the first cause and the last effect is precisely zero. In modern causality we know this is not the case. Causal influences propagate through space no faster than c, the speed of light in a vacuum. For moving objects causal influences propagate at much lower rates, the speed of the causal object, or the speed of the causal series such as the speed of sound in a particular medium, for example.
The very notion of an “essential” simultaneous series is false, in light of modern knowledge. There simply is no such thing as t1 – tn = 0.
A Local Example
Allow me to give you a specific closed system example, one of many such available. Consider a tank of compressed Argon gas, which is a sealed steel bottle containing a finite number of Argon atoms.
Inside we find a mad chaos of motion, a crazy beehive of Argon atoms bouncing off each other and bouncing off the walls of the steel bottle. The pressure against the walls is accounted for by the sum of the impacts of these agitated atoms. This motion never stops, so long as the bottle remains sealed, further, the sum of this motion remains constant, as long as the temperature of the bottle remains constant.
Please identify in this bottle of compressed Argon
1. The “essential” series.
2. The first mover of this series.
Clearly, both 1 and 2 are illusory, and based on Aristotelian concepts of motion long ago shown to be erroneous. Here is a simplified description of the Argon atoms, “A”, and the sort of series they are in, necessarily a time sequence of events, not simultaneous.
A1 moves A2
A2 later moves A3
… later moves An
An later moves A1
If that series were a logical argument we would say it is circular. It is indeed a circular description. Simply put, all the atoms inside the bottle just keep bouncing off each other over time without end. On modern knowledge the reasons are that there is no such thing as friction at the atomic level, the natural state of matter is to continue moving as it is unless acted upon, and matter/energy are conserved.
(cont.)
Now, the Thomist may object that this is a closed system, not representative of the universe as a whole. It remains to be seen whether or not the universe is a closed system, but irrespective, if there is to be an ontological first changer it must be acting in all places and at all times, including inside our Argon filled sealed bottle. Irrespective of how the gas was placed in the bottle many days ago, the ontological first mover must be moving all those atoms about and keeping them in existence. Yet no such necessity is in evidence. The Argon atoms simply continue to exist under conservation of matter/energy because there is no change to the total amount of matter/energy in the bottle, and therefore no necessity for a changer.
Thus, as an argument for an “essential” ontological series, the premise “But this cannot go on to infinity” is flatly false. Ontologically there simply is no series, since the very notion of any need for a sustaining cause is illusory on inertia and conservation of matter/energy.
Infinite Regress in Time
Now, one may object that I have limited my discussion to a finite time, leaving open the question of how the motion of this whole system of motion came to be. Both Aristotle and Aquinas concluded that an eternal universe either was the case or at least could not be logically disproved, so even in this consideration there is no terminus since motion extends back into the past ad infinitum given the A-T notion of an eternal universe. Thus, in the case of a temporal regress interpretation premise 4 is also false.
In either case, moving objects bouncing off each other ad infinitum, or extending back in time infinitely, there is no call for an ontological mover at all, since the causal series for motion is temporal, not ontological.
Ontologically the premise “But this cannot go on to infinity,” is flatly false because there is no such thing as an ontological series, the very notion being illusory.
In my previous posts I showed a variety of argumentation defects of the First Way and the analysis provided above including
1.Affirming the consequent to state, “when Aquinas talks about movement he is talking about change, as can be seen from the definition that he gives of change (to move)” since he actually made the converse of your statement
2.Begging the question by arguing U -> ~~U -> ~I -> U.
3.Stating the manifestly false premise that U is what all consider to be God
4.That same premise “this is what all consider to be God” is also an ad hoc assertion, a non sequitur with respect to U, and a false dichotomy even if we grant U.
5.Aquinas fails to even argue that “a divine being exists” as you address in your opening paragraph at some length. Aquinas only states (falsely) “this is what all consider to be God”, which is a statement of mere human thinking, leaving the actual existence of a God as an implied non sequitur from mere human notions of God.
6.The notation of Francisco Romero Carrasquillo is crucially abbreviated, invalidly omitting “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;”, “and this everyone understands to be God”, and the implied assertion of the existence of god, without which the notation does not even attempt the purpose called out in your opening paragraph, to show “a divine being exists”.
Still, despite the many defects I have pointed out in previous posts and summarized in 1 through 6 above, those defects are potentially repairable with a more careful rewording of Aquinas, although the actual text of Aquinas will remain hopelessly invalid and otherwise unsound.
Thus, the very notion of an “essential” series is an error of human perceptual artifacts, while the call for an ontological causal agent or series is without rational merit, rendering the Thomistic worldview irreparably erroneous to its core, owing to the falsity of these foundational principles
Interested readers should click the link to Dr Feser's blog. There one will see the paragraphs addressed one by one pointing out the flaws of each of them.
To bad that Strawdusty did not honestly include my comments and address them. As a result his little piece is a series of blunders built on blunders.
bmiller: "To bad that Strawdusty did not honestly include my comments and address them. As a result his little piece is a series of blunders built on blunders."
caveman: "To [sic] bad that the aeronautical engineer didn't include my comments and address them before thinking he could launch such an outlandishly large thing into the sky..." Interrupted by 747 taking off in background.
@Stardusty -- I'm just finishing reading Orwell's 1984 for the first time. I can see why the book has been revered for so long. At one point, Orwell describes the ability of inner party members to not only pretend but to actually make themselves believe that black is white, war is peace, etc. Orwell called this "protective stupidity."
The similarities between the subject of Orwell's book and the behavior of apologists was what I have found most surprising and trenchant.
>> "Sometime today a leaf blew across the road. What moved the leaf? Air molecules, of course. What moved those air molecules? Previous motions of air molecules. And what caused those motions? Previous motions, of course."
This doesn't address Cal's claim about the FW argument. Let me know when you get to the part where the FW argues that the FIrst Mover necessarily acted billions of years ago but not today. The argument never discuss time so good luck with that.
I cannot wait to hear Dusty tell us the story of the big motion from billions of years ago that caused his hand to type out his last comment. It's naturalism's most popular fable.
>> "Irrespective of how the gas was placed in the bottle many days ago, the ontological first mover must be moving all those atoms about and keeping them in existence. Yet no such necessity is in evidence. The Argon atoms simply continue to exist under conservation of matter/energy because there is no change to the total amount of matter/energy in the bottle, and therefore no necessity for a changer."
Here Dusty first denies that something ontologically different is necessary because - wait for it - something ontological different (law of nature) acts to conserve matter/energy so that there is no change.
Dusty's Argon bottle analogy doesn't go into explaining what caused everything to change. If eternal matter in motion is like the Argon bottle then, taken as a whole, today should look no different than every time in history. We should see the Argon bottle situation throughout history. History doesn't look anything like that. It's changed a lot. That change requires something besides the Argon bottle in motion.
bmiller: "To bad that Strawdusty did not honestly include my comments and address them. As a result his little piece is a series of blunders built on blunders."
caveman: "To [sic] bad that the aeronautical engineer didn't include my comments and address them before thinking he could launch such an outlandishly large thing into the sky..." Interrupted by 747 taking off in background.
Well what a surprise. No rational argument offered by either atheists against rebuttals just simply ignoring them.
But my expectations have been set pretty low seeing that it took at least the last 8 months for at least one of them to realize that the First Way is not the Kalaam argument (even though that one still wants it to be the Kalaam argument).
I suspect it will take longer for any other fact to register.
Apologist: "Well what a surprise. No rational argument offered by either atheists against rebuttals just simply ignoring them."
What rebuttals? You've posted nothing that has rebutted the criticism offered here regarding the obvious ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. You remain a joke.
Apologist: "But my expectations have been set pretty low seeing that it took at least the last 8 months for at least one of them to realize that the First Way is not the Kalaam argument (even though that one still wants it to be the Kalaam argument)."
The inability of apologists here to grasp the fact that a First Mover argument NECESSARILY goes back into the past (including the very distant past) is an example of what George Orwell called "protective stupidity."
SteveK said...
" Dusty's Argon bottle analogy doesn't go into explaining what caused everything to change."
--Of course it does, you just did not read it and understand it.
" If eternal matter in motion is like the Argon bottle"
--I said it was an example of a closed system and that the question of whether or not our universe is a closed system remains to be solved.
I can write it for you but I cannot read it for you and understand it for you.
" then, taken as a whole, today should look no different than every time in history."
--The cosmological principle holds that things are basically the same everywhere.
" We should see the Argon bottle situation throughout history."
--In an expanding universe the "bottle" expands over time.
"History doesn't look anything like that. It's changed a lot."
--Right, change over time. That is a temporal process, not an ontological or sustaining cause.
" That change requires something besides the Argon bottle in motion."
--Right, either a temporal first cause or an eternal universe with eternal motion.
July 27, 2017 3:26 PM
bmiller said...
" Interested readers should click the link to Dr Feser's blog. There one will see the paragraphs addressed one by one pointing out the flaws of each of them."
--You took a couple irrational shots at a few points. Some were so garbled I did not bother to respond, others were wrong in other respects as I pointed out.
I posted a lengthy rebuttal to a Feser paper Billy linked to me. Nobody responded so my negation of Feser stands. His reasoning varies between irrelevant and false.
" To bad that Strawdusty did not honestly include my comments and address them. "
--Why would I include your comments? Those are your words, not mine.
Some of your confused thinking you posted was addressed as I anticipated certain objections, both explicitly and implicitly. If you think you have some actual rational counter argument go ahead and post it. I have not been able to identify any of your words with merit beyond using them as examples of how many people typically make fundamental errors, as Feser repeatedly does and I demonstrated at length in response to Billy.
July 27, 2017 7:21 AM
@Cal,
What rebuttals? You've posted nothing that has rebutted the criticism offered here regarding the obvious ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. You remain a joke.
You do know how to click on a link don't you? I guess not.
Even Strawdusty can do that.
My expectations have been met again.
@Strawdusty,
--Why would I include your comments? Those are your words, not mine.
Because it would occur to an honest person that including the objections that were presented during the course of the conversation would be relevant.
You didn't respond to them there, so I don't expect repeating them here will be any different.
However, I will repeat that among the many confusions you have, a predominate issue is that you reify motion/energy as if it was a thing that existed independently of existing things. At least one material thing must exist for there to be local motion at all. No thing, no motion. Or another way to put it is that you muddle the distinction between what a thing is and what it does.
Material things come into existence, exist and then pass out of existence. Motion is merely one of the things that material things do while in existence as a combination of form and matter. Whatever it is that sustains the material object in that combination is ultimately responsible for not only the existence of the thing, but also all the things that the object does including motion.
Cal: "The inability of apologists here to grasp the fact that a First Mover argument NECESSARILY goes back into the past (including the very distant past) is an example of what George Orwell called "protective stupidity."
I noticed you changed your statement to include "past" and "distant past. I take that distinction to mean that the FW doesn't necessary take you back billions of years - that it also takes you to other past moments, of which there are many. Good to see you correcting your mistakes.
Progress!!
bmiller said...
" Material things come into existence, exist and then pass out of existence. "
--Name some.
Matter/energy is only rearranged, never created or destroyed.
"Motion is merely one of the things that material things do while in existence as a combination of form and matter."
--Name some things that matter/energy does that does not require so called local motion.
July 28, 2017 7:55 AM
stevek: "I noticed you changed your statement to include "past" and "distant past."
???????
I wrote something that is consistent with what I've been saying all along.
stevek: "I take that distinction to mean that the FW doesn't necessary take you back billions of years - that it also takes you to other past moments, of which there are many. Good to see you correcting your mistakes."
This statement of yours appears incoherent.
Protective stupidity is truly a powerful thing.
Stardusty: "Why would I include your comments? Those are your words, not mine."
bmiller: "Because it would occur to an honest person that including the objections that were presented during the course of the conversation would be relevant."
I don't see why -- especially if the objections were irrelevant.
It's also very telling that you think that someone sharing their words is somehow dishonest, but when someone like stevek flagrantly lies ("I'm a mechanical engineer!") you are unable to discern as much or don't think it's remarkable.
bmiller: "You didn't respond to them there, so I don't expect repeating them here will be any different."
I suspect that your bleatings elsewhere are similar to your bleatings here; about as trenchant and on topic as that of a caveman who thinks he has something urgent to tell an aeronautical engineer about how a 747 cannot fly.
bmiller: "However, I will repeat that among the many confusions you have, a predominate issue is that you reify motion/energy as if it was a thing that existed independently of existing things. At least one material thing must exist for there to be local motion at all. No thing, no motion. Or another way to put it is that you muddle the distinction between what a thing is and what it does."
Hysterical. You've shown yourself to be a child, unschooled in physics, incapable of consistency, who doesn't know what dishonesty is. And you somehow think all this qualifies your thoughts as urgently worthy of some new consideration and respect.
bmiller: "Material things come into existence, exist and then pass out of existence. Motion is merely one of the things that material things do while in existence as a combination of form and matter. Whatever it is that sustains the material object in that combination is ultimately responsible for not only the existence of the thing, but also all the things that the object does including motion."
Oh, do tell us, perfessor!
Cal Metzger said...
stevek: "I take that distinction to mean that the FW doesn't necessary take you back billions of years - that it also takes you to other past moments, of which there are many. Good to see you correcting your mistakes."
" This statement of yours appears incoherent."
--SteveK has apparent difficulty with the notion of a regress.
If we write
t1, t2, t3...
this seems to trigger in SteveK a need or a desire to just arbitrarily stop the series at some time. It's like trying to imagine some number of dots at the same time, the brain only gets up to a small number. Mathmatics allows us to go far beyond that sort of cognitive limit, but SteveK just can't seem to make that progression.
SteveK, how much time is an infinity of "a few moments"?
If "a few moments" spanned 1 second how many such periods are in a billion years?
What is the qualitative difference between 1s, 1m, 1h, 1y and 1000000000y? Why would you arbitrarily stop your regression analysis at any particular past time?
July 28, 2017 2:20 PM
@Strawdusty,
--Name some.
As you are aware from the other blog, dogs and cats come into existence, exist and then pass away. Motion is something that dogs and cats do and would not exist at all if there was nothing that was a material thing that exists as a combination of form and matter.
--Name some things that matter/energy does that does not require so called local motion.
Change in a quality is not considered the same as local motion in Thomism, but of course your asking that particular question indicates that you either miss the point I was making or want to change the subject.
Matter and energy are abstractions and are unitelligble without reference to form. Kinetic energy...kinetic energy of what exactly? Matter...matter of what exactly?
I wonder if I will see a relevant response.
>> "I wrote something that is consistent with what I've been saying all along."
I don't see where you made two distinct references to the past before - one distant, one not distant. Regardless, I'll take this as an unintended clarification and say that I agree with you.
>> SteveK, how much time is an infinity of "a few moments"?
An infinite amount of time. Why do you ask and what is the relevance to the FW? Don't tell me you think the FW necessarily takes you back to a particular moment in time?
bmiller said...
" objections ... You didn't respond to them there,.. local motion ... Motion is merely one of the things that material things do ... that sustains the material object
July 28, 2017 7:55 AM
Some Key Concepts
1.The notion of an “essential” series is illusory.
2.Simultineity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero (the infinitesimal).
3.No ontological first mover (sustaining cause) is necessary for persistence of matter/energy on the modern science of conservation of matter/energy.
4.No ontological first mover (sustaining cause) is necessary for persistence of motion on the modern science of conservation of matter/energy.
5. No ontological first mover (sustaining cause) is necessary for persistence of motion on the modern science of inertia.
6.All forms of change require so called “local motion”.
7.Every causal series is a temporal series.
8. No ontological first mover (sustaining cause) is necessary for change on the modern science of motion.
9.No temporal first mover is called for on the assertion of an eternal universe with eternal motion.
10.The assertion in the First Way of “But this cannot go on to infinity” versus “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover” is a false dichotomy because there simply is no “this” or “it” (ontological series or sustating cause) necessary.
11.The plain text reading of the series “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” with respect to “It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion” is a temporal regress.
12.The assertion “But this cannot go on to infinity” is false on the plain text temporal reading and an eternal universe with eternal motion.
(to find the reasons for 1 through 12 above see the following)
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM
July 26, 2017 11:38 PM
July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
>> 1.The notion of an “essential” series is illusory
LOL. The stick in the hand/stick/rock series isn't essential. The rock moves just the same with or without it. LOL.
SteveK said...
" LOL. The stick in the hand/stick/rock series isn't essential. "
July 28, 2017 5:32 PM
--See
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM
for an explanation of the illusion of an "essential" series of a human using a stick to push an object.
Such a series is temporal and in A-T terms "accidental". There is no such thing as an "essential" series, with the perception of any series as "essential" being an artifact of human observation limitations and shallow causal analysis.
LOL. You're getting dumber the longer this goes on. You really can't fix stupid.
The metal forms just the same with or without the hydraulic fluid in the forging press. Not essential at all. The ski gondola moves just the same with or without the metal cable. Not essential at all. The dirt pile moves just the same with or without the bulldozer. Not essential at all.
The only illusion I'm seeing is the illusion of your intelligence.
SteveK said...
" The metal forms just the same with or without the hydraulic fluid in the forging press. Not essential at all. The ski gondola moves just the same with or without the metal cable. Not essential at all. The dirt pile moves just the same with or without the bulldozer. Not essential at all. "
--The father is essential to the formation of the child as well.
The father, the oil, the cable, and the bulldozer are all essential in the common meaning of the word essential.
None are "essential" in the Thomistic sense of the word "essential". To learn why see
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM starting with "Some Definitions". Since you claim to be a mechanical engineer the subsequent discussions of the limit function, the infinitesimal, simultaneity, and element analysis with be familiar to you and easy to grasp.
>> "The father is essential to the formation of the child as well."
You really are confused. Go read a book.
Me: "I wrote something that is consistent with what I've been saying all along."
stevek: "I don't see where you made two distinct references to the past before - one distant, one not distant."
I've referred to a single reference frame just prior to the present, and I've referred to light from billions and billions of years ago, and I've referred to the big bang. The past is the past -- it's all just a matter of accepting certain facts of physics, and following that to the point where we reach a paradox in our understanding. You are so stupid you don't even realize what the paradox is.
You are so stupid that you think there is a clear distinction between the distant past (whatever that means) and a more recent past.
stevek: "Regardless, I'll take this as an unintended clarification and say that I agree with you."
You are so stupid that you think that your consistent misunderstandings of basic scientific principles is somehow due to my writing, when in fact it is a result of your moral cowardice and how it further stunts your mental abilities.
You are a liar, and this is something you know, but you somehow ignore or pretend otherwise.
You are an apologist.
And apologists are THE WORST.
Haha! Love you too, Cal.
>> "I've referred to a single reference frame just prior to the present, and I've referred to light from billions and billions of years ago, and I've referred to the big bang."
A motion of the kind that the FW describes can be caused by the First Mover a single reference frame prior to the motion starting. Agreed.
stevek: "A motion of the kind that the FW describes can be caused by the First Mover a single reference frame prior to the motion starting. Agreed."
I don't know who you think you're agreeing with.
All things have been in motion since the big bang; the "first" mover you posit is not, nor could be "first" in any sense that tries to align with the First Way.
You remain so stupid that you appear completely unaware of how stupid you are.
That you would imagine yourself somehow capable of partaking in this discussion, or any intellectual discussion for that matter, is constantly amazing to me.
>> "All things have been in motion since the big bang; the "first" mover you posit is not, nor could be "first" in any sense that tries to align with the First Way."
That forging press has not always been in motion. It's sitting idle right now. Same with that train and that ski gondola and that rock. If you are sitting down, you not in the motion of walking. Are you too stupid to realize this or just pretending to be stupid? Let me know which.
Will it be Cal that will tell us the fable of the big motion from billions of years ago that caused Cal to start the motion of walking and the forging press to start the motion of forging?
SteveK said...
" That forging press has not always been in motion. It's sitting idle right now."
--In motion. What you and I perceive as "sitting idle" is in motion.
Everything is in motion with respect to everything else, and always has been for as far back as we are able to observe, some 13 billion years.
" Same with that train and that ski gondola and that rock."
--The same can be said in these cases as well, indeed.
" If you are sitting down, you not in the motion of walking."
--But you are in motion. If you stop your major motions you have died, but even then the materials of your body continue to be in motion.
All these motions are analyzed using a temporal regress. All are "accidental", none are "essential" in the Thomistic senses of those quoted words (see July 26, 2017 11:32 PM for Thomistic defections).
July 30, 2017 12:49 PM
stevek: "That forging press has not always been in motion."
The forging press is on a planet that spins. The planet is in orbit around a sun. The solar system is part of an expanding universe. The sub atomic parts of the press are in a constant state of motion.
This is all part of modern knowledge, and you appear ignorant of it. And you are so stupid that you cannot absorb this information. And your stupidity is likely a function not just of your limited cognitive abilities, but of the kind of moral depravity that permits you to believe that your lying, and excusing that lying, is not only permissible but to be condoned.
You are apologist. And apologists evince the worst in human behavior.
Cal,
>> "The forging press is on a planet that spins. The planet is in orbit around a sun. The solar system is part of an expanding universe. The sub atomic parts of the press are in a constant state of motion."
The forging press is not FORGING. That is the motion I was referencing. You knew that but chose instead to list all the other ongoing motions.
You are a dishonest piece of human debris. You live up to the atheist stereotype.
stevek: "You are a dishonest piece of human debris."
This from an apologist, who felt so overwhelmed that he was compelled to lie about his being a mechanical engineer (as if anyone cares).
You are a joke.
But that should be no surprise; because you are an apologist.
Matter and energy are abstractions and are unitelligble without reference to form. Kinetic energy...kinetic energy of what exactly? Matter...matter of what exactly?
I wonder if I will see a relevant response.
Yes, I really think that these guys think that motion is an existent thing independent of material objects. For instance, the press that is being discussed could not possibly have been in motion in the distant past, because is did not exist in the distant past.
Add that confusion to the equivocation of the reference frame when discussing local motion, and the incoherence of their position is multiplied.
@bmiller
>> "For instance, the press that is being discussed could not possibly have been in motion in the distant past, because is did not exist in the distant past."
Yup. That new motion starts every day at 8am when the factory opens (for example). That new motion is occurring now, today, and we can apply the logic of the FW to that new motion. Billions of years ago? I don't think so.
bmiller: "Yes, I really think that these guys think that motion is an existent thing independent of material objects."
This is hysterical; it's the apologists here who had tried to push the odd concept that change (motion) constitutes something more than a change in position.
So you have that exactly wrong. But your lie makes sense, because you are an apologist, and in apologist land, black is white, and 2+2 = 5.
bmiller: "For instance, the press that is being discussed could not possibly have been in motion in the distant past, because is did not exist in the distant past."
Mkay. By that logic the wood that is set to burn in the First Way couldn't possibly be burning, because it wasn't burning wood in the past.
If you can't apply consistency to your thinking, you have no hope of rational thought.
bmiller: "Add that confusion to the equivocation of the reference frame when discussing local motion, and the incoherence of their position is multiplied."
Ha. I don't think you know what equivocation means. But that makes sense because you are an apologist, and in apologist land, black is white, and 2+2 = 5.
It's not that you and stevek are just mistaken; you appear to be damaged people, incapable of rational thought. It's truly amazing how you both talk in a kind of flitting newspeak that keeps you in your state of protective stupidity.
@Cal,
It is pretty clear that you don't understand what I'm saying and I've come to expect that. I've decided to respond pretty much only to when you try to make a point other than whining, complaining or flinging insults.
This is the only thing I found that I could respond to.
Mkay. By that logic the wood that is set to burn in the First Way couldn't possibly be burning, because it wasn't burning wood in the past.
Again it is clear you missed my point.
Try this:
The burning wood in the First Way could not possibly be the continuation of some ancient motion because the wood in the First Way did not exist at one point in time. Things that don't exist do not burn. So the burning of that particular piece of wood from a particular tree could not possibly stretch back in ancient history, since the tree did not even begin to exist since maybe 100 years prior.
Can you re-read the statement you quoted and explain to me how understood it the way you did? I admit I mistyped "is did not exist". It should have read "it did not exist".
bmiller: "The burning wood in the First Way could not possibly be the continuation of some ancient motion because the wood in the First Way did not exist at one point in time."
Actually, everything that makes up the wood has existed since the beginning of time. What you identify now as burning wood has existed, in other forms, since the beginning of time. You can only deny this fact by hiding from reality. But that is what apologists do, so I expect you to continue to hide from this simple fact.
bmiller: "Things that don't exist do not burn."
Agreed.
bmiller: "So the burning of that particular piece of wood from a particular tree could not possibly stretch back in ancient history, since the tree did not even begin to exist since maybe 100 years prior."
Your choice of a tree from 100 years ago as being the beginning of the wood is arbitrary. Prior to that the material and energy that make up the tree inhabited other places and could have been identified with other things, but all of these identifications are arbitrary -- a tool of our subjectivity that helps us make useful sense of the world. You make the mistake of assuming that a thing that you identify (wood, a tree) is THE beginning, but it is not THE beginning for the complex relationships that are occurring all around us, and have been occurring since the beginning of time.
It might be easier for a rational person to see it this way: burning wood releases energy. But the energy in the wood came from the sun, and the sun was made billions of years ago. So, that burning piece of wood doesn't begin to exist only 100 years ago -- that burning piece of wood is a snapshot in time of a process that has been unfolding, and that MUST be traced back to the beginning of time, where the paradox of existence resides (and that the First Way fails to resolve, for the many reasons listed here in detail and with great repetition).
@Cal,
Can you re-read the statement you quoted and explain to me how understood it the way you did? I admit I mistyped "is did not exist". It should have read "it did not exist".
Will I get an answer to this?
I'll respond to this since the following entails the other comment:
Your choice of a tree from 100 years ago as being the beginning of the wood is arbitrary. Prior to that the material and energy that make up the tree inhabited other places and could have been identified with other things, but all of these identifications are arbitrary -- a tool of our subjectivity that helps us make useful sense of the world. You make the mistake of assuming that a thing that you identify (wood, a tree) is THE beginning, but it is not THE beginning for the complex relationships that are occurring all around us, and have been occurring since the beginning of time.
My choice of the tree beginning to exist exactly 100 ago was arbitrary, but not the fact that it began to exist in the more recent past. The "material and energy" that make up the tree were not (necessarily) in the form of a tree and had very different properties when they were in that different form. Sunlight, water and nutrients do not catch fire when a match is held next to them. This fact is not subjective.
Motion does not exist in the absence of existent things. No existent things, no motion. Existent material things consist of form and matter. Two things may consist of the same matter but due to their form, they have different natures and behave differently. As particular things come into existence, they operate and change according to the type of thing they are until they go out of existence. It is the changing of particular existent things that you witness happening now and remember as happening in the past.
Have you read the link to Feser's blog or watched the video? I'd rather not repeat it all here.
bmiller: "Can you re-read the statement you quoted and explain to me how understood it the way you did? I admit I mistyped "is did not exist". It should have read "it did not exist". / Will I get an answer to this?"
In the comment after which you asked this question I quoted you three times, so it wasn't at all obvious to me what you mean. And I don't care enough to try and sleuth it out for you -- you are casual, lazy, stupid, and deceptive, among other things. If there is a misunderstanding between us I may be at some fault, but I'm not going to pretend that you are an honest or reasonable interlocutor. You sailed that ship a looooong time ago.
@Cal,
Suit yourself.
If you're happy with misunderstanding, so be it.
Me: "If there is a misunderstanding between us I may be at some fault, but I'm not going to pretend that you are an honest or reasonable interlocutor. You sailed that ship a looooong time ago."
bmiller: "Suit yourself. / If you're happy with misunderstanding, so be it."
Not quite. I just don't care to pretend that differences between someone like me, and yourself -- who is casual, lazy, stupid, and deceptive -- is attributable to misunderstanding.
The differences between us are chiefly moral. And morality can't be cleared up through explanation.
As I have explained above, the best explanation is that you suffer from a number of deficiencies (ignorance, inconsistency, narcissism, stupidity) which are a result of commensurate moral failings (not a strictly cognitive one) on your part, but this is what nonetheless makes you so stupid.
I think this is what's at the heart of saying that one can't fix stupid; I can tell you things you don't know, but I can't make you be someone who is largely different from how you are wired. And you (and other apologists) are wired like a defective robot, who seeks out the comfort of protective stupidity; I can't make you choose to become enlightened, or consistent, or consider intersubjectivity, or accept epistemic humility. Those are things that you have to be able to choose for yourself, and I'm not going to pretend that your encounters with the likes of me can change that.
So, no, I'm not content with misunderstandings. But I do accept that you and I are probably wired very differently, and I accept my limited ability to change that. I can try, but I don't expect real results.
@Cal,
In the comment after which you asked this question I quoted you three times, so it wasn't at all obvious to me what you mean. And I don't care enough to try and sleuth it out for you
So, no, I'm not content with misunderstandings.
I asked you a question to clarify for me why you misunderstood. You didn't answer that question, and indicated that you aren't interested in clearing up your misunderstanding. I'm OK with that whether it makes you happy or not.
Now feel free to whine and emote. When I see an actual argument I will respond.
Or Ill just post anyway so I can have the last word ☺
Haha!
The psychological and moral projection is hilarious.
bmiller: "I asked you a question to clarify for me why you misunderstood. You didn't answer that question, and indicated that you aren't interested in clearing up your misunderstanding. I'm OK with that whether it makes you happy or not."
I can't clear up the fact that you're dishonest; that's my point. And you are fundamentally dishonest. You are damaged. I can fix misunderstandings, but I can't make you a moral person, the kind who isn't dishonest, who cares about consistency, who doesn't lie, etc. -- and I can't fix your stupidity, or the other problems associated with your pathological thinking.
Those aren't normal misunderstandings between two well intentioned people; they are a case of my talking beyond and above you, because you are fundamentally stupid and ignorant, and this is a result of your dishonesty and poor moral character (which I cannot fix for you).
Capiche?
@Cal,
Like I said, feel free to whine and emote. Even fling fact free accusations if you like. Seems that's your favorite pastime.
Let me know when you can actually muster something resembling a rational argument.
bmiller: "Even fling fact free accusations if you like. Seems that's your favorite pastime."
Fact: Your dishonesty can be viewed throughout these comments. I have pointed out many examples. So your denial is meaningless, except more evidence for my explanation that dishonesty inclines one toward stupidity.
bmiller: "Let me know when you can actually muster something resembling a rational argument."
Pointing out the numerous flaws in the First Way is trivial and easy for those who apply consistency to their thinking, and abide by the rules of good argument. This has been done so many times now that apologists asking for its repetition needs its own explanation.
As I have explained before as well, I am not so much interested in why the First Way is a bad argument (that's pretty easy to identify), but why some people fail so spectacularly at recognizing these failings.
My best explanation is that stupid people (such as yourself, and stevek, but this applies to all apologists) are stupid because they suffer from what are normally called moral deficiencies -- your inconsistency, willingness to lie and excuse lying, narcissism, etc. are a significant contributing source to what makes you stupid.
As a prediction to test this explanation, I will predict that you and other apologists will remain dishonest in your comments, and that you will remain stupid (for example, incapable of recognizing the obvious flaws in the First Way). And that your inability to become less stupid will be hindered in ways that can be tied to your moral deficiencies -- an inability to remain consistent, willingness to lie and excuse lying, and narcissism.
We're supposed to trust the sanity of someone who believes that a cause billions of years ago put him in motion to get out of bed today?
stevek: "We're supposed to trust the sanity of someone who believes that a cause billions of years ago put him in motion to get out of bed today?"
Um, yes, because that logic is inevitable. Unless you are too stupid to see that there is a direct link to the matter and energy that make up me and the beginning of our universe -- you can't have one without the other.
stevek: "We're supposed to trust the sanity of someone who believes that a cause billions of years ago put him in motion to get out of bed today?"
We're supposed to pay heed to a person who is so insecure that he lied about, for example, his being a mechanical engineer -- and refuses to correct and apologize for his lying?
See. My prediction came true!
Me: "We're supposed to trust the sanity of someone who believes that a cause billions of years ago put him in motion to get out of bed today?"
Cal "Um, yes, because that logic is inevitable. Unless you are too stupid to see that there is a direct link to the matter and energy that make up me and the beginning of our universe -- you can't have one without the other."
You can if you're not a mind-numbed naturalist. Unsound logic isn't worth much so any argument that includes the premise "you have no free will to act", can safely be ignored. If you think a cause from a billion years ago is what got you moving out of bed today, you just might be too stupid for words to describe - so I won't even try.
@Cal,
Ah, just checked in to see if you could muster some rationality, but I see it's just more evidence free assertions and name calling.
You are aware that ad hominem is a fallacy and not a rational way to argue aren't you?
Most people resort to it when they know they've lost the argument. In your case you led with it and never quit.
What conclusion would a reasonable person reach?
bmiller: "You are aware that ad hominem is a fallacy and not a rational way to argue aren't you?"
You don't understand ad hominem. Ad hominem is a fallacy when it is used as an excuse to dismiss an argument. But that's not what I have done.
I have pointed out the many flaws in the First Way, and why they do not abide by the rules of good argument. Apologists have made no meaningful reply to any of these criticisms -- unsound premises, muddled language and equivocation, begging the question, contradiction, and and ad hoc reasoning. These faults in the First Way are obvious, and they have been described with rigor in the comments (which I agree with) made and referenced repeatedly by Stardusty.
Apologists deny the above.
I don't care that apologists deny the above, because the determination of others is not what makes an argument a good or bad argument. What makes an argument good or bad are the rules of good argument -- which the First Way clearly violates, in the ways described above.
So, what you call ad hominem is not (at all) ad hominem.
It is explanation, for the stupidity evinced by apologists. My explanation is that apologists (as opposed to ignorant and mundanely stupid people) are made stupid by what we more normally call character defects -- including inconsistency, dishonesty, and narcissism.
This explanation of mine is NOT regarding why the First Way is a bad argument. The First Way is a bad argument because it fails to abide by the rules of good argument. For rigorous analysis of the ways in which the First Way fails, you could try to address Stardusty's comments here:
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
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM
July 26, 2017 11:38 PM
July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
But because you possess moral deficiencies, you wont' be able to apply the consistency, honesty, and epistemic humility required to understand rational analysis like the above. You are literally made stupid by your moral failings.
This is something that I hadn't considered to the degree I have before these series of posts began, but I am coming to believe that it is an undervalued and productive way to predict and explain stupidity such as yours and that of other apologists.
Not that you'll understand any of this. But I like to leave these comments here as self notes, in case I ever need to refer back to my earlier thinking.
>> "For rigorous analysis of the ways in which the First Way fails, you could try to address Stardusty's comments here:"
For detailed replies that explain why these criticisms fail to be valid, see all 2300+ comments.
Cal Metzger said...
" But because you possess moral deficiencies, you wont' be able to apply the consistency, honesty, and epistemic humility required to understand rational analysis like the above. You are literally made stupid by your moral failings."
--Interesting hypothesis.
There must be some explanation for the blogging behaviors of theistic apologists.
Clearly different theisitic bloggers behave differently, although there are some common themes.
bmiller - seems to be more of obscurantist or contrarian, exhibiting the trollish tendencies to play whack a mole with scattered bits and pieces of quips and irrelevant diversions, perhaps deriving some bizarre pleasure from a never ending game of misdirection using the willful ignorance of the malicious provocateur.
SteveK - an obvious liar about being a mechanical engineer, but that seems to have been a sort of spur of the moment defense mechanism when cornered. Mostly throws out short and rather pointless posts.
grod - another obvious liar about being a mathematical physicist, rarely makes any arguments at all, just shows up to imply he has some vast store of knowledge but it is beneath him to share it. Seems to have a quick fuse and quickly hurls pointless ad hominems.
Legion - actually presents arguments, sometimes at length, but refuses to complete them, possibly as a defense mechanism when about to discover that his arguments inevitably lead to falsifications of his beliefs.
On your hypothesis above...made me consider the chicken and the egg. Do apologists argue in such a scattered and irrational manner because their low moral character drives them to behaviors that make them look stupid when they are not, or the other way around? Are they just stupid people who argue so badly that they appear to be acting out of low moral character?
Faith might make that choice a false dichotomy. Perhaps the apologist is generally of high moral character and also a reasonably bright person, but the indoctrination, one might say brainwashing, has affected their cognitive processes such that whenever rationality comes into conflict with core faith a cognitive breakdown occurs, which has the outward appearance of both stupidity and low moral character. On this hypothesis the theist is highly functional in other aspects of life, exhibiting both high moral character and high cognitive skills professionally and socially so long as such endeavors do not directly challenge the faith firewall to rationality.
August 04, 2017 6:00 AM
SteveK said...
>> "For rigorous analysis of the ways in which the First Way fails, you could try to address Stardusty's comments here:"
" For detailed replies that explain why these criticisms fail to be valid, see all 2300+ comments."
August 04, 2017 9:43 AM
Please provide the date tags for the comments that specifically show my errors as I negate any call for an ontological first mover and I negate the very notion of an "essential" causal series in these posts
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM
July 26, 2017 11:38 PM
July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
Do your own homework. If you can't remember or didn't read the responses, not my problem. I remember reading them.
@Cal,
You don't understand ad hominem. Ad hominem is a fallacy when it is used as an excuse to dismiss an argument. But that's not what I have done.
Of course you have. In fact that is almost all you have done. The last time you even tried to address any counter-argument of mine was 3 days ago when the discussion was how only an existing tree/wood can burn.
Here is the dictionary definition. See especially 2.
Merriam Webster:
Definition of ad hominem
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect - an ad hominem argument
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made - made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival
Ad hominem attacks are irrational. Normally they are a sign of intellectual defeat.
I assume that is the case since you persist in them rather than engaging with actual content of arguments.
SteveK is of course correct that any and all of the supposed objections have been answered multiple times. If you care to reply to any of them please do.
@Strawdusty,
It's so adorable to see you 2 playing amateur psychologists. You appear to be just as good at that as making coherent arguments and reading comprehension (or even reading anything at all regarding the subject matter).
Most everybody gave up on this thread because they thought that there was no way that you were ever going to get a clue. But a few of us hung in there and behold, 8 months later, you too discovered what everyone had been telling you all that time. Trust me, if you work diligently, those things that have seemed obscure will clear up.
Some people would have bought Dr Feser's book Aquinas or other that have been suggested, but you chose the harder path of googling irrelevant sources. To each his own.
Dusty "negates" the reality of an essential series while observing them in everyday life. I'd say that's the real psychological problem here.
SteveK said...
" Dusty "negates" the reality of an essential series while observing them in everyday life. "
August 04, 2017 12:01 PM
Name some.
If you can't remember the examples given, not my problem. I read your critique so at one time you knew about them.
Blogger SteveK said...
" If you can't remember the examples given, not my problem. I read your critique so at one time you knew about them."
August 04, 2017 12:56 PM
--Well there was the one about the train, an obviously "accidental" series. And the one about holding a stick to push a rock, another obviously "accidental" series.
Here is how the train works
A molecule of O2 moves into a cylinder.
At a later time a hydrocarbon molecule is pumped into the cylinder.
At a later time the these molecules react and produce fast moving CO2.
At a later time the CO2 molecule smacks into the piston, pushing it down.
At a later time electrons move into the coils of a motor.
At a later time air molecules get smacked by the caboose.
At a later time those air molecules hit other air molecules.
And on and on and on.
That is what makes a the train go. It is an obviously "accidental" series.
Since you purport to be a mechanical engineer howzabout you set up a Solid Works simulation of how a train works. Of course, that is a finite element analysis package that uses models of differential functions from element to element to model such a temporal causal series.
>> Here is how the train works
You claim it's not an essential series. Remove the first step (or any other one) and tell me how this changes the motion of the train. Does it still chug, chug, chug up the hill just the same? If the answer is "no" then it's essential to the motion.
SteveK said...
>> Here is how the train works
" You claim it's not an essential series. "
"Remove the first step (or any other one) and tell me how this changes the motion of the train."
--It doesn't. Each cause and effect is irrecoverable. Future causes and effects are not real, only imagined or predicted, or variously likely or unlikely.
" Does it still chug, chug, chug up the hill just the same? "
--Your very phrase "chug, chug, chug" is inherently a temporal sequence.
First there is a chug.
Then later there is another chug.
Then later there is another chug.
"Chug, chug, chug" is necessarily an "accidental" series because it is necessarily a temporal series.
What the Thomist does is to use the human perception of "present" unawares. We all build a model of the present in our brain. This consists of memory of the recent past, a continual tracking of what we perceive as the present moment, and an anticipation of the near future. For a human being all these perceptions and interpretations and imaginations are combined into what we call "the present".
So, if one combines all the causes over some time period into a label or title of "the cause" and further combine the effects over a time period into a label or title of "the effect" then "the cause" is perceived as concurrent with "the effect".
In truth these are gross oversimplifications that are necessary for a human being to function. We cannot possibly go around analyzing chemical reactions on an atomic scale, in astronomical numbers, in order to live our lives.
But the First Way seeks to explain some things most fundamental to the workings of our observable universe. To do so in the modern era requires that we do, in fact, analyze a causal series down to the most minute structures we know of, below the atom level.
It is in this full analysis that the A-T notions of simultaneity break down. As we understand the full scope of the myriad causal series we can understand the illusory nature of labeling an ongoing motion of the train as a single effect, and assigning the title of cause to a single complex mechanism such as a locomotive.
Every causal series is temporal, and thus necessarily "accidental"
Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes called the infinitesimal. A series cannot be contained within this limit, so every series has causes and effects that are not simultaneous. Therefore no series is "essential".
August 04, 2017 2:36 PM
>> It doesn't.
So now you've changed your mind - you're now saying that oxygen isn't essential to the motion of the train? It moves equally the same without oxygen, huh. Are you smoking weed, Dusty?
SteveK said...
>> It doesn't.
" So now you've changed your mind - you're now saying that oxygen isn't essential to the motion of the train? "
"Essential" in Thomistic sense is very different than essential in the common sense.
Go read
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
or the OP, or any other source of the Thomistic notion of an "essential" causal series.
Come back when you can keep it straight.
@Strawdusty,
Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes called the infinitesimal. A series cannot be contained within this limit, so every series has causes and effects that are not simultaneous.
Nonsense. I linked you to the example of how physics typically considers force impressed on an object continuously causes the object to continue to move.
In case you didn't read it, here it is:
3. A train is pulling two cars of the same mass behind it. Show that the tension in the coupling between the train and the first car is twice that between the first car and the second car for any nonzero acceleration of the train.
If we select the first and second cars as the system, the only horizontal force is the tension in the coupling between the locomotive and the first car.
From the force diagram, we have ·Fx = (m1 + m2)ax , or F1 = (m + m)a= 2ma.
If we select the second car as the system, the only horizontal force is the tension in the coupling between the first car and the second car.
From the force diagram, we have Fx = m2ax , or F2 = ma.Thus we have F1/F2 = 2ma/ma = 2, for any nonzero acceleration
The locomotive is supplying the force. Neither of the cars are supplying the force and so the first car's coupler is only instrumental in moving the last car. The series of cars and the engine are all moving simultaneously.
This is not confusing to physicists, engineers or students taking physics courses. I'll bet most normal humans are capable of grasping this concept. It's amusing that you say this is all impossible, while using technology all the time based on these concepts.
bmiller said...
August 05, 2017 7:13 PM
" Nonsense. I linked you to the example of how physics typically considers force impressed on an object continuously causes the object to continue to move."
--The problem does nothing to contradict my analysis of causation.
You do not know how to read for comprehension, at least on this subject.
You are so dense you do not even realize that is an acceleration problem, and acceleration is necessarily a temporal causal sequence and therefore an "accidental" series.
You are also so dense as to not realize that is not an attempt at a causal series analysis, rather, it is an idealized and grossly oversimplified model as an introduction to beginner students.
Or, you are not that dense and you just get some weird pleasure out of knowingly posting stupid statements.
Dusty doesn't realize how far his head is up his a$$ when he says stuff like:
"every series follows a time sequence of events and is thus "accidental"
Irrelevant. If Dusty could think clearly he would realize that an accidental series is one where the causal activity of a member in the series is not essentially dependent on that of any prior member of the series.
The refinery caused the diesel fuel to form, and that fuel now sits in the fuel tank on the train. Does the motion of the trains wheels, today, depend on the refinery? No. The refinery isn't helping to cause the motion. The refinery could be demolished to the ground and the wheels would turn just the same.
Contrast this with the series of parts on the train that drive the wheels. Does the motion of the trains wheels, today, depend on those parts? Yes. Those parts are helping to cause the motion.
Accidental series, essential series.
>> "You are also so dense as to not realize that is not an attempt at a causal series analysis, rather, it is an idealized and grossly oversimplified model as an introduction to beginner students."
And yet it is neither deluded, irrational, incorrect or false. Why don't you call out your colleagues in the scientific community for being wrong, deluded, irrational and the like? They're the people teaching this stuff. Perhaps you should publish a paper and get the word out. I can hear the collective laughter now.
SteveK said... August 06, 2017 8:51 AM
" The refinery caused the diesel fuel to form, and that fuel now sits in the fuel tank on the train. "
--This gross oversimplification of a complex temporal process set indicates you are not the ME you claim to be.
"Does the motion of the trains wheels, today, depend on the refinery? No. "
--Yes. Without the refinery processes the oil would not have been produced.
"The refinery isn't helping to cause the motion. The refinery could be demolished to the ground and the wheels would turn just the same."
--The locomotive could be destroyed and the motion that has already occurred would not be undone.
Future motion is not real, only imagined or predicted.
" Contrast this with the series of parts on the train that drive the wheels. Does the motion of the trains wheels, today, depend on those parts? Yes."
--"Today" is a long time. You are combining a whole set of causes and effects into a single cause and a single effect. If you were an ME you would know you could not run a finite element analysis to model the train using such a gross oversimplification.
Blogger SteveK said... August 06, 2017 9:42 AM
" Why don't you call out your colleagues in the scientific community for being wrong, deluded, irrational and the like? "
--They are not teaching A-T twaddle, so there is no such need for me to do so.
@Strawdusty,
You are so dense you do not even realize that is an acceleration problem, and acceleration is necessarily a temporal causal sequence and therefore an "accidental" series.
F=ma. Consider m=1. If force = 0, acceleration = 0. If force = 1, acceleration = 1 at the same time.
This has been empirically verified for over 300 years and counting. As far as the sciences of physics and engineering are concerned it's an established fact until and unless empirical evidence contradicts it.
At this time, I would like to point out that there was a contention that Newtonian physics contradicted the First Way somehow. When Legion pointed out that the argument was really metaphysical rather than a pure argument from physics you 2 insisted that it was only about physics. But as we know, physics and engineering use calculus to accurately measure instanteous velocity and it uses F=ma to compute the either the force impressed on an object or the acceleration of that object due to the force at any particular time under consideration and to predict the motion of the object in the future. "The science is settled" some would say.
But philosophers study metaphysics and the nature of time is a metaphysical question that people getting degrees in physcists do not study (today anyway). So your contention is a metaphysical contention and not a matter of physics as taught today. This validates Legion's contention that the argument is a at bottom a metaphysical argument.
So let's discuss what happens as we measure the local motion of an object accelerating as in the Feynman example 8-2. We can see that the measurement of velocity converges on a particular value as the increments of sampled time become smaller, that value being 160ft/sec. Is that value real or an illusion? Science assumes it is real and uses the value successfully in technology. But philosophers are squeamish about the metaphysics.
So there are a couple of questions to ask about the situation. What exactly happens when Δt goes to zero?
Well, the first thing to note is that if we are talking about measuring position change Δx during Δt it is Δt that goes to zero, not t. So the measurement at t0 and t1 would actually be a single measurement(or a simultaneous measurement of position x) since t0=t1. It is clearly a useless exercise to take 2 simultaneous measurements of x to compute velocity.
If time is considered a continuum, then there really is no "single" point in time. Modern calculus is taught using the concept of continuous functions and limit theory rather than "infinitesimals", so the consideration of what happens at the "now" moment is not a consideration.
Aristotle also held the view that time was a continuum and that "now" was undefined other than a boundary between the present and the future. Very similar to the apex of the light cone in modern physics.
>> "They are not teaching A-T twaddle, so there is no such need for me to do so."
I was referring to the free body diagram that you insist is not consistent with the reality of causality. Since you think it's so wrong why not publish a paper? You'd be laughed at as the kook you are, that's why.
Me: "Does the motion of the trains wheels, today, depend on the refinery? No. "
Dusty: "Yes"
Show me the refinery causing the wheels to move. You can't do that. I can show you the parts of the train that are causing the wheels to move. That's how science works. Observation and verification. Try it some time.
Stardusty: "On your hypothesis above...made me consider the chicken and the egg. Do apologists argue in such a scattered and irrational manner because their low moral character drives them to behaviors that make them look stupid when they are not, or the other way around? Are they just stupid people who argue so badly that they appear to be acting out of low moral character?"
I've often considered the same thing before. Recently I'm nudging toward the former -- that low moral character directs the subject in the direction of stupidity. I’ve been thinking about this for awhile, and it seems an underdeveloped explanation for what we observe — people with easy access to good information, who nonetheless remain painfully ignorant. This needs an explanation — in some ways, it is the pressing issue of our times.
What I hadn't appreciated enough is that not only does low moral character (which I roughly characterize as involving obvious inconsistency /hypocrisy, deception, and narcissism) present a social burden on others, but it also makes the subject stupider. In other words, I used to think that moral character only influenced one’s social interactions, but I’m coming to think that it also controls one’s navigation of asocial reality.
What’s only now occurring to me is that their might be an additional cost to immoral behavior, beyond the potential risks of ostracism, etc. — that additional cost being a sacrifice in how one can navigate reality independent of other creatures.
Stardusty: “Faith might make that choice a false dichotomy. Perhaps the apologist is generally of high moral character and also a reasonably bright person, but the indoctrination, one might say brainwashing, has affected their cognitive processes such that whenever rationality comes into conflict with core faith a cognitive breakdown occurs, which has the outward appearance of both stupidity and low moral character.”
I suppose it’s possible that indoctrination can diminish one’s moral character. Certainly we see this with children indoctrinated into cults — religious, military, criminal, etc. I like your (implied) supposition that moral character is malleable / redeemable, something that I often have trouble believing to be true.
Stardusty: “On this hypothesis the theist is highly functional in other aspects of life, exhibiting both high moral character and high cognitive skills professionally and socially so long as such endeavors do not directly challenge the faith firewall to rationality.”
I think you might be confusing “high moral character” with socially constructive things, which I think that those who are inconsistent, deceptive, and narcissistic are more or less capable of. To be clear, I am talking about immorality per se, despite the fact that those who behave immorally can be highly successful in some social and professional situations (for example, our President).
Still, I am old fashioned — I believe that in life, as in drama, character is fate. Eventually, it all comes round.
@Cal,
I repeat:
Merriam Webster:
Definition of ad hominem
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect - an ad hominem argument
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made - made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival
Ad hominem attacks are irrational. Normally they are a sign of intellectual defeat.
I assume that is the case since you persist in them rather than engaging with actual content of arguments.
You have re-enforced my conclusion.
I will add that the fact that you cannot be rational does not make your opponent immoral. If you think it does, it is merely further demonstration that you are being irrational.
Now, if you choose the rational course, there is actual content presented relevant to the topic that you have a choice to discuss. Will you choose to argue rationally?
bmiller: "appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect - an ad hominem argument"
You seem to want to imply that I have (ever) argued that the First Way is a bad argument because you appear to be so stupid.
But this has never been my argument per se.
I have pointed out the problems with the First Way, and when apologists have shown themselves incapable of even engaging with the rules of argument I have provided an explanation for this inability as well. You are too stupid to understand, but I'll write it out with short words below.
1. The First Way is a bad argument according to the rules of good argument.
2. No meaningful (non spurious, non fallacious, etc.) interpretation of the First Way has been provided by apologists that avoids the ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
^ This is both true and incredibly obvious.
3. The facts above are ignored by apologists in ways that can best be summarized as stupidity.
4. Furthermore, apologists could be made stupid(er) by the character flaws we see in all apologists -- inconsistency (hypocrisy), deceit, and narcissism -- character flaws that can be beneficial for an individual in a social group, but are likely not advantageous outside highly complex social relationships (the rest of reality).
^ These could be debated, and although these points derived from 1 & 2 above, their status is independent of the argument being discussed.
Do you see where 3 & 4 -- what you incorrectly call ad hominem -- are independent of the facts and the argument at issue as described in 1 and 2? Do you understand the difference between ad hominem -- which relates to insults used to undermine an argument -- and an insult, which is used to provoke and rebuke individuals who evince certain behaviors?
Do you understand that the reasons I have provided for why the First Way is a bad argument are independent of the reasons I have offered for why you are made stupid(er)?
If you don't understand the above, after all this, the best explanation is that you are stupid. And that you are likely made stupider by your moral deficiencies -- which can be seen by reading your comments in the context of the discussion above.
Which doesn't change the fact that the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument, for the reasons described and referred to so many times now.
Side note: I think it's funny when apologists say something really stupid that skeptics just ignore because it's so stupid, and the apologist starts to think that the reason the skeptic has ignored it is because they're trying to avoid the point. So the apologist usually starts to really press the stupidity, thinking maybe their actually on to something this time.
But no. What you originally wrote (that the criticism of the First Way offered here prior, over and over so many times now, was somehow an ad hominem) was just really stupid the first time.
bmiller said... August 07, 2017 7:37 PM
" an ad hominem argument"
--I haven't seen any ad hominem arguments against the first way here.
The first way is a bad argument because it is logically invalid and also unsound for a variety of other reasons.
You do really dumb things like post a freshman simplified acceleration problem as evidence for the acceptance of an "essential" series by physics. I mean, that is stunningly stupid. Acceleration is necessarily a process over time and clearly an "accidental" series. A freshman physics problem is not intended to be a detailed analysis of causation for the system. The fact that you repeat such problems the way you do means you are either incredibly dense or you take some bizarre pleasure in dishonestly posting nonsense.
Your absurd posts are not the reason the first way is unsound, so I am not making an ad hominem argument against the first way. My arguments against the first way can be found here:
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 30, 2017 7:08 AM
June 30, 2017 5:45 PM
July 23, 2017 1:17 PM
July 23, 2017 1:19 PM
July 23, 2017 1:20 PM
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM
July 26, 2017 11:38 PM
July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM
Skeptics, LOL!
@Cal,
You seem to want to imply that I have (ever) argued that the First Way is a bad argument because you appear to be so stupid.
Really? I can only post words and sentences. I can't understand them for you....that's something you are responsible for.
From 4 days ago:
Here is the dictionary definition. See especially 2.
Merriam Webster:
Definition of ad hominem
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect - an ad hominem argument
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made - made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival
Do you see the parts I put in bold print? Do you understand what those words mean?
You have been attacking your opponents' characters rather than the content of their arguments.
It seems you still choose irrationality. I suggest you give rational thought a try.
It is true that the skeptics have criticized the FW and concluded that it is not a good argument.
It is also true that people have explained where those criticisms are wrong, leaving them empty and powerless.
When you're out of new convincing ideas, all that's left to do is hurl insults
My prediction is that Cal will continue with the insults rather than present new convincing ideas. Begin the experiment...
@Strawdusty,
--I haven't seen any ad hominem arguments against the first way here.
Well, I haven't seen any coherent arguments against the First Way here. I have seen you 2 hurl insults rather than dealing with the content of your opponents contentions.
from the definition:
marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
A freshman physics problem is not intended to be a detailed analysis of causation for the system.
This was addressed August 06, 2017 1:11 PM. I've linked to Feynman and to that particular physics problem to support my position. I checked out the links you provided and....oh wait...you didn't provide any links. In fact you haven't provided any evidence at all. You know, I am a skeptic so you will understand why I don't believe you.
Your list of irrelevant and point missing contentions have been addressed and refuted throughout this thread, at the Feser site and on the "Richard Swinburne on doubt and faith" post.
Dusty is shopping his criticisms of the FW around various internet forums. He's not making any progress here so try somewhere else.
@SteveK,
Dusty is shopping his criticisms of the FW around various internet forums. He's not making any progress here so try somewhere else.
That's so funny! Normal people would be hesitant to broadcast their ignorance.
What sites?
My prediction is that Cal will continue with the insults rather than present new convincing ideas. Begin the experiment...
I feel the universe speaking to me too. I predict the same. :-)
@Strawdusty,
My arguments against the first way can be found here:
And they have all been refuted here:
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM
March 19, 2017 12:31 PM
July 22, 2017 2:39 PM
January 22, 2017 6:28 PM
February 12, 2017 5:59 PM
February 05, 2017 11:23 AM
February 07, 2017 11:25 AM
February 12, 2017 4:48 PM
May 23, 2017 8:40 PM
June 30, 2017 7:50 AM
March 19, 2017 2:14 PM
July 08, 2017 8:23 PM
May 07, 2017 12:07 PM
May 11, 2017 12:19 PM
May 18, 2017 8:37 PM
July 02, 2017 12:50 PM
July 09, 2017 7:53 AM
July 11, 2017 12:25 PM
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html
July 10, 2017 at 8:46 PM
July 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM
July 11, 2017 at 8:40 AM
July 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM
July 13, 2017 at 10:19 AM
July 13, 2017 at 7:36 PM
July 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM
July 16, 2017 at 1:40 PM
July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM
July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM
July 18, 2017 at 7:53 PM
July 18, 2017 at 8:01 PM
July 19, 2017 at 5:39 AM
July 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM
July 20, 2017 at 9:26 PM
July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM
July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM
July 22, 2017 at 11:20 PM
July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
July 23, 2017 at 9:44 PM
July 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM
bmiller said...
" It has been argued that Newton's First Law of Motion refuted Aristotle. If so, we would expect Newton to point that out."
July 11, 2017 12:25 PM
--Irrelevant, like all your supposed "refutations". Sorry, they are not all irrelevant, some are incoherent, others are factually mistaken, and there are a variety of defects in them all.
Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing. Since there is no change then there is not changer called for in that circumstance.
In other circumstances there is no changer called for for other reasons I detailed July 26 and you did not even list any so called "refutations" after that date because you don't have anything you can even try to pass off as such.
@Strawdusty,
Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing. Since there is no change then there is not changer called for in that circumstance.
This was first addressed at the Feser blog. It was addressed multiple times and in fact by the article you quoted from Dr Feser at that blog.
Here was a typical response
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html
July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
Repeated here a couple times again:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10584495&postID=1424858326254363402
August 04, 2017 12:48
August 05, 2017 2:32 PM
Once again since you didn't get it the first 3 times, here it is again:
This seems to be the gist of your argument:
1) Things that don't change do not require a changer.
2) Some things do not change.
3) Therefore there is no need of an ultimate Unchanged Changer.
Here was my reply:
1) The First Way does not address things that don't change. The first premise only requires the observation that something is changing and that could be only 1 thing. So the fact that some things do not change is irrelevant to the argument.
2) So in order to defeat the First Way, it must be demonstrated that nothing is moving or has ever moved.
3) But even if that could be demonstrated (per impossible since demonstration would be change) the question of "why are there things?", the ontological cause, could still be asked and still would still lead to God.
The dates and links I provided gave the actual definition of inertia, not the one you made up.
But I suggest that if you want to make up your own definitions, please try to make up coherent ones. This invention states that an object in motion is not changing but it certainly is changing wrt to position.
I didn't address anything after July 26 in my list because all of your point-missing and incoherent ramblings were generated and addressed well before that date. Do I really have to add all the times I have to repeat the same thing and list all the posts on the other thread on this blog?
bmiller: " It has been argued that Newton's First Law of Motion refuted Aristotle. If so, we would expect Newton to point that out."
Stardusty: "--Irrelevant, like all your supposed "refutations". Sorry, they are not all irrelevant, some are incoherent, others are factually mistaken, and there are a variety of defects in them all."
I don't think you should be sorry that bmiller and other apologists flail about as they do.
Yes, their replies are irrelevant, incoherent, mistaken, and largely defective of intellectual value.
But the mistake is that you (and I) are discussing the obvious defects of the First Way, whereas the apologists are really just trying to defend the notion that their group's beliefs are somehow still worthy of intellectual respect, and by so doing they should receive the benefits presented to those who buttress group cohesion.
You and I are testing reality, using the tools of those who probe reality (outside the powerful dynamics that affect the lives of all of us who belong to groups that vie for resources available to humans). Apologists are nakedly fighting for the spoils inside the social construction that we inhabit. For you and I empiricism, and the rules of argument, are what arbitrate reality. For apologists, psychological defects (their own, and those who are under the control of such defects) are the currency that they value. Any use of the language of enlightened thinking serves that pretense.
This is the broader dynamic that explains these exchanges, in which the psychological disorders of the apologist I have highlighted (inconsistency / hypocrisy, deceit, and narcissism) can simultaneously be objectively wrong and advantageous. Arguments do not have to right to be effective.
This is all painfully and awkwardly obvious to the likes of you and me. Less obvious is what we can do about it. And just as previous generations of enlightened individuals lit candles and then fought against superstition, then imperialism, then fascism, then communism, this presents itself as the less obvious, but possibly more insidious and dangerous, force that must be confronted and defeated.
I suspect that social norms / pressures are the answer. That is why ridicule remains effective, and why I think that engaging with the likes of the apologists on this blog, while instructive, might do as much harm as it does good -- engaging here also enables apologists to pretend that their ideas are worthy of consideration, that they are valuable.
>> You and I are testing reality, using the tools of those who probe reality
You're joking, obviously, because Dusty wants everyone to believe that a demolished refinery is actually causing the wheels of the train to move. That's some serious delusional stuff right there - but that's naturalism for you.
@Cal,
Yes, their replies are irrelevant, incoherent, mistaken, and largely defective of intellectual value.
You have made an assertion. You have the burden of proof to support that assertion.
Here is the list of replies I supplied. Please support your assertion with evidence and rational arguments.
https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM
March 19, 2017 12:31 PM
July 22, 2017 2:39 PM
January 22, 2017 6:28 PM
February 12, 2017 5:59 PM
February 05, 2017 11:23 AM
February 07, 2017 11:25 AM
February 12, 2017 4:48 PM
May 23, 2017 8:40 PM
June 30, 2017 7:50 AM
March 19, 2017 2:14 PM
July 08, 2017 8:23 PM
May 07, 2017 12:07 PM
May 11, 2017 12:19 PM
May 18, 2017 8:37 PM
July 02, 2017 12:50 PM
July 09, 2017 7:53 AM
July 11, 2017 12:25 PM
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html
July 10, 2017 at 8:46 PM
July 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM
July 11, 2017 at 8:40 AM
July 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM
July 13, 2017 at 10:19 AM
July 13, 2017 at 7:36 PM
July 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM
July 16, 2017 at 1:40 PM
July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM
July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM
July 18, 2017 at 7:53 PM
July 18, 2017 at 8:01 PM
July 19, 2017 at 5:39 AM
July 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM
July 20, 2017 at 9:26 PM
July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM
July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM
July 22, 2017 at 11:20 PM
July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
July 23, 2017 at 9:44 PM
July 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM
Legion isn't here, but you cannot forget these
June 25, 2017 10:44 PM
June 25, 2017 10:45 PM
June 25, 2017 10:46 PM
June 25, 2017 10:47 PM
Me: "Yes, [bmiller's and other apologists'] replies are irrelevant, incoherent, mistaken, and largely defective of intellectual value."
bmiller: "You have made an assertion. You have the burden of proof to support that assertion. Here is the list of replies I supplied. Please support your assertion with evidence and rational arguments."
Ha. How do you propose I make you see how your comments are largely incoherent, mistaken, and largely defective of intellectual value when the stupidity that allows you to make comments that are largely incoherent, mistaken and largely defective of intellectual value is the same stupidity with which you will evaluate my reply?
And is the same stupidity that would prevent you from recognizing the problem that you propose above.
Still, I'll probably get around to looking at your first reply, then pointing out the problems with it in some detail, knowing that you will reply that what you really meant was something else, how the sloppy and dilettantish musings are instead notations that are too complex for the words you used when you had the opportunity, and that the real answers supposedly (as they ALWAYS do with apologist) lie in some elsewhere that never actually provides the answers that were promised.
The contents of the first link (March 18, 2017 10:47 AM), in total, that bmiller represented as refuting the detailed criticisms of the First Way:
bmiller: For readers who didn't read or ignored the very first comment on this topic and did not click the link to the Summa Contra Gentiles: / "[10] It is to be noted, however, that Plato, who held that every mover is moved [Phaedrus], understood the name motion in a wider sense than did Aristotle. For Aristotle understood motion strictly, according as it is the act of what exists in potency inasmuch as it is such. So understood, motion belongs only to divisible bodies, as it is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. According to Plato, however, that which moves itself is not a body. Plato understood by motion any given operation, so that to understand and to judge are a kind of motion. Aristotle likewise touches upon this manner of speaking in the De anima [III, 7]. Plato accordingly said that the first mover moves himself because he knows himself and wills or loves himself. In a way, this is not opposed to the reasons of Aristotle. There is no difference between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle." /There's plenty more there for the honest seeker. /March 18, 2017 10:47 AM"
How any of this addresses, let alone refutes the criticisms offered -- namely, that the First Way uses muddled language, equivocates, is unsound, contradicts itself, and is ad hoc (as specifically explicated in the links that Stardusty provided above) -- is something that only someone who is made stupid could believe.
So, another lie, supported by stupidity, born from deficient moral character. From bmiller, who is an apologist.
Imagine my surprise.
@Cal,
Ha. How do you propose I make you see how your comments are largely incoherent, mistaken,
For a start, you could demonstrate that you understand the First Way argument. After all the "Rules of Good Argument" state that you shouldn't argue about things you misunderstand. This can be done by repeating what you think it means back to your opponents in your own words and see if they agree if you got it right. You could quote primary sources and/or qualified expert opinion to support your arguments.
Regarding specific points of disagreement, you could ask for clarification if you think you misunderstand your opponent, then if you think you understand corrrectly, point out where you think there is a flaw in their position, provide a reason for why you think it is a flaw, provide relevant citations if applicable and evaluate your opponent's response rationally.
What will you do?
@Cal,
I asked: *What will you do?*
The answer, is *not the rational thing* I guess.
How any of this addresses, let alone refutes the criticisms offered -- namely, that the First Way uses muddled language, equivocates, is unsound, contradicts itself, and is ad hoc (as specifically explicated in the links that Stardusty provided above) -- is something that only someone who is made stupid could believe.
The particular quote you chose was repeated 2 more times, here: March 19, 2017 12:31 PM and here:July 22, 2017 2:39 PM.
Why not read those 2 also and see if you understand.
Me: "Ha. How do you propose I make you see how your comments are largely incoherent, mistaken, and largely defective of intellectual value when the stupidity that allows you to make comments that are largely incoherent, mistaken and largely defective of intellectual value is the same stupidity with which you will evaluate my reply?"
bmiller: "For a start, you could demonstrate that you understand the First Way argument."
I do understand the First Way, as demonstrated by my recognizing the problems in the argument. My question to you was -- how do I cure you of your stupidity? I don't think you have an answer to that question. I certainly don't.
bmiller: "After all the "Rules of Good Argument" state that you shouldn't argue about things you misunderstand."
No, that's not a rule of argument -- you (surprise!) have it almost exactly wrong. The rules of good argument are in many ways derived from Socrates, who presented an exemplar of the rules by asking about things that it seemed he didn't understand -- but in the process exposed the claimant as being the one who was confused. Think, Columbo.
Of course, you are too ignorant to understand the paragraph above, and too stupid to figure it out, and too juvenile to understand who and what Columbo represented. And that's because to people like me, you are just a stupid child.
bmiller: "This can be done by repeating what you think it means back to your opponents in your own words and see if they agree if you got it right."
Wow. This is so not how to evaluate an argument. You are genuinely stupid.
bmiller: "You could quote primary sources and/or qualified expert opinion to support your arguments."
Primary sources to support an argument about motion, about physical reality? You are genuinely stupid.
If by "expert opinion" you mean modern understanding of physical reality, then I would agree that our modern understanding of physical reality is the best way to evaluate an argument about motion. But, seeing as how your comments regularly reveal that you don't even possess a basic understanding of high school-level physics (you seem homeschooled), this is hardly something of which you seem capable.
You are so sad.
bmiller: "The particular quote you chose was repeated 2 more times, here: March 19, 2017 12:31 PM and here:July 22, 2017 2:39 PM. / Why not read those 2 also and see if you understand."
Because they are irrelevant to the problems pointed out in the First Way.
Repeating mistakes doesn't fix the mistake; it just demonstrates stupidity.
@Cal,
bmiller: "The particular quote you chose was repeated 2 more times, here: March 19, 2017 12:31 PM and here:July 22, 2017 2:39 PM. / Why not read those 2 also and see if you understand."
Because they are irrelevant to the problems pointed out in the First Way.
Well, I can point you to the posts and I can even post them again. But I can't understand them for you. That's something you have to do with your own mind.
I asked: *What will you do?*
Again no substance. Just increasingly frantic rage.
Maybe you should take a break and chill. This seems to be too much for you emotionally.
My prediction was very accurate. When it's been explained to you how your criticisms are wrong, and when you're all out of new ideas - you hurl insults.
bmiller said.. August 11, 2017 11:49 AM
" For a start, you could demonstrate that you understand the First Way argument. "
--Done. In plain text it is an argument from motion, based on the senses, and therefore temporal. The consideration for an infinite regress is therefore necessarily temporal on the plain text reading and the assertion of the impossibility of an infinite regress is therefore temporally false on an eternal universe that both A and T claimed could not be disproved.
So, apologists quickly turn to "what he really meant" excuses that are not in the plain text of the argument and are claimed to have support in other writings of Aquinas.
According to the "what he really meant" excuse makers "motion" means "change" and the infinite regress is somehow about an ontological series, that is a supposed regress of causes for existence itself in zero time in the present.
No explanation is provided as to why change argues for an ontological regress, or why the argument is titled as being from motion, if it is supposedly really about existence in zero time, given that zero change happens in zero time.
But, that bit of absurdity aside there is no call for any regress of causes other than physics. To explain the structures we observe is a physics problem that can and does simply terminate with fundamental physics, end of story, no problem.
No explanation is provided as to why an unchanged changer is needed to change things just to explain their continued existence, which is not itself a change. So the whole notion of an ontological regression in connection with a first mover is a non-sequitur.
In considering any sort persistence of motion or existence either there is no change occurring and thus no changer is required, or if change is happening it is necessarily happening over time, thus calling for a temporal regress which is no problem on an eternal universe.
So, fundamentally, the First Way falls apart no matter what interpretation is applied. Only people who are incapable of following each thread of argument through to its conclusion find any rational merit in the argument from any interpretation.
Plus there are the structural defects such as begging the question, ad hoc assertion, demonstrably false premise, and the preposterous incompleteness of the argument.
The First Way, in the end, does not even attempt to make an argument for the existence of god. All it does is tell the absurd falsehood about human ideas about god, saying nothing about any demonstration of the real existence of god.
Those who understand the First Way understand all these defects.
Those who are ignorant of the First Way think it is a good argument.
@Strawdusty,
--Done. In plain text it is an argument from motion, based on the senses, and therefore temporal. The consideration for an infinite regress is therefore necessarily temporal on the plain text reading and the assertion of the impossibility of an infinite regress is therefore temporally false on an eternal universe that both A and T claimed could not be disproved.
It seems your "In plain text reading" actually means how *Strawdusty* interprets it, which of course is wrong as all commentators and scholars of Aristotle and Aquinas attest as well as all of us who have actually bothered to do the research. The fact that you cannot summon any knowledgeable expert to support your view is conclusive.
The rest of your assertions have all been rebutted without answer. If you would like to try again, here is the list.
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM
March 19, 2017 12:31 PM
July 22, 2017 2:39 PM
January 22, 2017 6:28 PM
February 12, 2017 5:59 PM
February 05, 2017 11:23 AM
February 07, 2017 11:25 AM
February 12, 2017 4:48 PM
May 23, 2017 8:40 PM
June 30, 2017 7:50 AM
March 19, 2017 2:14 PM
July 08, 2017 8:23 PM
May 07, 2017 12:07 PM
May 11, 2017 12:19 PM
May 18, 2017 8:37 PM
July 02, 2017 12:50 PM
July 09, 2017 7:53 AM
July 11, 2017 12:25 PM
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html
July 10, 2017 at 8:46 PM
July 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM
July 11, 2017 at 8:40 AM
July 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM
July 13, 2017 at 10:19 AM
July 13, 2017 at 7:36 PM
July 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM
July 16, 2017 at 1:40 PM
July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM
July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM
July 18, 2017 at 7:53 PM
July 18, 2017 at 8:01 PM
July 19, 2017 at 5:39 AM
July 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM
July 20, 2017 at 9:26 PM
July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM
July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM
July 22, 2017 at 11:20 PM
July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
July 23, 2017 at 9:44 PM
July 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM
bmiller: "It seems your "In plain text reading" actually means how *Strawdusty* interprets it, which of course is wrong as all commentators and scholars of Aristotle and Aquinas attest as well as all of us who have actually bothered to do the research. The fact that you cannot summon any knowledgeable expert to support your view is conclusive."
These two sentence confirm, yet again, that
1. You are too stupid to understand basic physics and apply logic, and
2. You think that a known fallacy (argument from authority) is not only not a fallacy, but that any voice of authority could trump physical reality.
The first is an example of your poor moral character making you stupider (you are inconsistent, and this prevents you from understanding that logic is first and foremost about consistency). If you can't be consistent, you can't apply logic, and if you can't apply logic, you can't think well. And if you can't think well, you are stupid.
The second is an example of your basic stupidity enabling you to believe that experts arbitrate physical reality (they do not, as all those who understand science know), and your poor moral character (your narcissism) making this belief even stupider by stipulating that you are the one who determines whose opinion should be considered valid concerning physical reality. But people's opinion doesn't stipulate how reality behaves; reality does that.
Thus, per my recent posts, your comments reveal that you are stupid, and that your poor moral character appears to be an intrinsic component of what makes you stupider.
That's the problem with the likes of you and other apologists; it's not just that you don't understand the basic skills needed to understand and test ideas, it's that you lack the moral character required to adopt them.
And it seems that poor moral character is inevitably involved when people are stupid as you have been in these threads.
Sad.
bmiller: "The particular quote you chose was repeated 2 more times, here: March 19, 2017 12:31 PM and here:July 22, 2017 2:39 PM. / Why not read those 2 also and see if you understand."
So, it was irrelevant to the criticism provided not once, but three times, then?
bmiller: "Well, I can point you to the posts and I can even post them again. But I can't understand them for you. That's something you have to do with your own mind."
It's clear that you don't know how to form an argument.
The best explanation for you thinking that a "rebuttal" to the criticism explicated here is that you somehow believe that a writer pronouncing "there is no difference" between moving and not moving somehow makes it so. I would normally characterize this as aggressive gullibility on your part, but per my explanation over more recent characteristics I attribute this stupid notion to your narcissism -- that you put yourself before reality, and figure that your determinations (what you think, whose opinions you choose, etc.) are decisive in a discussion about reality. This is the apologist stupidity that is born from moral deficiencies.
bmiller: "I asked: *What will you do?*" / Again no substance. Just increasingly frantic rage. / Maybe you should take a break and chill. This seems to be too much for you emotionally."
Um hmm.
>> "1. You are too stupid to understand basic physics and apply logic, and
2. You think that a known fallacy (argument from authority) is not only not a fallacy, but that any voice of authority could trump physical reality."
I've read enough of Aristotle, Aquinas and various commentary on both to know you are wrong on both points. There is no argument from authority, there's only a desire for skeptics to understand the metaphysical arguments correctly. You're not doing that, hence all the comments that explain why your criticisms are wrong. Since your criticisms are wrong, they are empty and powerless.
It's not complicated.
@Cal,
You think that a known fallacy (argument from authority) is not only not a fallacy, but that any voice of authority could trump physical reality.
Citing experts is only a fallacy when the authorities cited are not really an experts, or if a point is acknowledged as controversial in the field.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/
9. The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them.
Now if you want to provide evidence that Aristotle, Aquinas, Feser, Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, etc have no expertise regarding the First Way, or that they disagreed among themselves regarding the premises or conclusion then please provide that evidence.
But that fact that you try to bring this up is rather ironic considering that you've repeatedly appealed to the authority of "modern physics" as an argument against the metaphyscis of the First Way.
Although SteveK beat me to the response.
@Cal,
So, it was irrelevant to the criticism provided not once, but three times, then?
The link was provided to the SCG before the criticism was asserted, so it's actually the criticism that is irrelevant since the criticism did not address the argument as presented.
The best explanation for you thinking that a "rebuttal" to the criticism explicated here is that you somehow believe that a writer pronouncing "there is no difference" between moving and not moving somehow makes it so.
Well the only one who asserted anything like "there is no difference" between moving and not moving was Strawdusty here:
Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing. . I certainly don't believe both propositions of a contradiction can be true at the same time in the same sense as he apparently does.
@SteveK,
My prediction was very accurate. When it's been explained to you how your criticisms are wrong, and when you're all out of new ideas - you hurl insults.
I don't think you have this quite right. I don't think Cal can actually muster a single comment without hurling childish, pointless insults. It's more like the only ideas he has are insults. One would wish he could be a little more creative if that's all he's got. He's really rather boring.
Me: "The best explanation for you thinking that a "rebuttal" to the criticism explicated here is that you somehow believe that a writer pronouncing "there is no difference" between moving and not moving somehow makes it so."
bmiller: Well the only one who asserted anything like "there is no difference" between moving and not moving was Strawdusty here: [Stardusty:] "Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing. . I certainly don't believe both propositions of a contradiction can be true at the same time in the same sense as he apparently does."
Of course, you are just a liar. For one, Stardusty's comment isn't about there not being a difference between moving and not moving, but that we now understand that something in motion will remain in motion (this is basic physics, which I know you don't understand). So, of course, your ignorance prevents you from grasping a simple concept, and being confused as a result.
But you're more egregiously a liar because you state:'
bmiller"Well the only one who asserted anything like "there is no difference" between moving and not moving was Strawdusty..."
bmiller(quoting Aquinas here, THREE TIMES!!!): "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle."
So, you are just a stupid buffoon, who lies.
No wonder you have so much free time.
@Cal,
Of course, you are just a liar. For one, Stardusty's comment isn't about there not being a difference between moving and not moving, but that we now understand that something in motion will remain in motion (this is basic physics, which I know you don't understand). So, of course, your ignorance prevents you from grasping a simple concept, and being confused as a result.
Strawdusty said:
Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing.
Motion is change. Uniform motion is change. Strawdusty says that uniform motion is not change. This is a contradiction.
bmiller(quoting Aquinas here, THREE TIMES!!!): "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle."
Yes, but you didn't understand the point of the passage which was to clarify what the definition of motion means to Aristotle vs Plato.
Namely that the type of motion that Aristotle refers to is the type of motion that Newton also refers to as a material body made of parts occupying space. The inanimate material things we perceive moving don't normally change their mind. If so, then why don't they decide to change direction or stop moving?
BTW are you actually capable of doing a single post without an insult?
bmiller said...August 13, 2017 8:38 PM
Strawdusty said:
Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing.
" Motion is change. Uniform motion is change."
--Here you expose your fundamental misunderstanding.
What about the object in uniform motion is changing by virtue of it being in motion?
Its mass?
Its energy?
Its structure (what you would likely call "form")?
Suppose 2 objects approach each other. Which is moving and which is standing still? Or are both moving? How fast are each moving? Relative to each other the choice is arbitrary and merely a function of how one arbitrarily chooses a reference frame.
" Strawdusty says that uniform motion is not change."
--Not precisely what I said. "an object in uniform motion is not changing". The object is not changing. Its position relative to some other object is changing, but the object is not changing. No property of the object is changing.
" This is a contradiction."
--Only to the extent that I contradict your misunderstanding.
@Strawdusty,
What about the object in uniform motion is changing by virtue of it being in motion?
If you declare that an object is in motion, then you have declared it is changing.
Suppose 2 objects approach each other. Which is moving and which is standing still? Or are both moving? How fast are each moving? Relative to each other the choice is arbitrary and merely a function of how one arbitrarily chooses a reference frame.
You arbitrarily chose to select a frame such that the object was in motion, thus changing.
" Strawdusty says that uniform motion is not change."
--Not precisely what I said. "an object in uniform motion is not changing". The object is not changing. Its position relative to some other object is changing, but the object is not changing. No property of the object is changing.
Then you've equivocated by using motion/change in 2 different senses in the same statement without qualification. I can only respond to what you wrote. I acknowledge that you distinguish different types of change other than local motion.
--Only to the extent that I contradict your misunderstanding.
Like I said. I can only respond to what you wrote, and "the plain text reading" reveals, it is a contradiction.
Strawdusty: "Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing."
bmiller: "Motion is change."
Motion is a change in position. Good.
bmiller: "Uniform motion is change."
Uniform motion is also change -- a change in position that is in proportion to the time elapsed.
bmiller: "Strawdusty says that uniform motion is not change."
Nope. Stardusty confirms what is accepted -- that the term inertia is used to describe that an object in uniform motion is not changing, and that an object in uniform motion will remain in that state (uniform motion) until something else acts upon it. This is a fundamental, bedrock principle of classical physics.
bmiller: "This is a contradiction."
Only if you don't understand basic physics. And you don't understand basic physics.
[my capitalization added below]
bmiller: "Well the only one who asserted anything like "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" between moving and not moving was Strawdusty here: Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing."
bmiller, three time prior to his false claim above: "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle."
bmiller (caught in a lie): "Yes, but you didn't understand the point of the passage..."
The point is that you are a liar. And liars, and those who are morally deficient, are made stupider by their moral failings. Until you can apply consistency to your thinking, and avoid hypocrisy and deceit, you have no hope of grasping reality, let alone contributing to a fruitful intellectual discussion that tries to understand the riddles of existence.
bmiller: "BTW are you actually capable of doing a single post without an insult?"
Of course. I seldom, if ever, insult gratuitously. However, when someone is hypocritical, deceptive, and narcissistic, I will insult and ridicule, because those are the most effective (and kindest) ways to respond while still confronting the stupidity that is made worse by moral failings.
The consistency of my insulting response to apologists is commensurate with the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism they evince. So, I suppose my insults would seem relentless to you; just imagine how much I have to shake my head every time it's required.
@Cal,
Only if you don't understand basic physics. And you don't understand basic physics.
Well if you think that basic physics tells us that "uniformly changing" = "not changing" you need to provide the evidence because this is an explicit contradiction. At least Strawdusty admitted he was equivocating. It seems you're tripling down on dumb.
bmiller, three time prior to his false claim above: "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle."
bmiller (caught in a lie): "Yes, but you didn't understand the point of the passage..."
You use the word "lie" alot. I don't think you know what that means.
It is clear from the quoted passage that Plato used the word "moves" in a different sense than Aristotle. Just like Strawdusty made a distinction between his terms "in uniform motion" and "changing" in his latest post. He then is a liar according to your definition if you apply the definition rationally.
Go ahead and insult away. That's what children do and I've set my expectations accordingly.
bmiller: "Well if you think that basic physics tells us that "uniformly changing" = "not changing" you need to provide the evidence because this is an explicit contradiction."
Stardusty wrote that object could be in "uniform motion" seven times. Not once has he written "uniformly changing." Who is the only person here to write the term "uniformly changing"?
Why, that's you. Bmiller, the liar. The liar who puts "uniformly changing" in quotes as if he is citing someone other than his own confused mind, made more stupid by his moral deficiencies -- in particular a willingness to be dishonest, and accept dishonesty.
bmiller: "At least Strawdusty admitted he was equivocating. It seems you're tripling down on dumb."
False. It would actually be a lie were Stardusty to state that he has equivocated (used the term in more than one sense, in order to confuse or deceive) in his use of the term "uniform motion" with regard to how it is understood in classical physics, as he does not appear to have done so.
But you have falsely claimed that he has equivocated, and you have falsely claimed that he has admitted to equivocating (for something he did not equivocate about). This is all so easily apparent from the discussion above that the best way to explain your stupidity here is that your moral deficiencies (in particular you dishonesty) are making you even stupider.
@Little Cal,
Since you insist on behaving like I child I will accommodate you and address you as one.
Now I understand that big words and proper punctuation are difficult for some children but please try to follow along.
Why, that's you. Bmiller, the liar. The liar who puts "uniformly changing" in quotes as if he is citing someone other than his own confused mind, made more stupid by his moral deficiencies -- in particular a willingness to be dishonest, and accept dishonesty.
Now now Little Cal, I didn't claim to be quoting anyone. Quote marks can be used in more than one way. Maybe you'll learn that in next year's grammar class.
Rule 8a. Quotation marks are often used with technical terms, terms used in an unusual way, or other expressions that vary from standard usage.
However, I did ask you to defend your assertion that the phrase "uniform motion is not change" is not a contradiction according to "basic physics". Given that you agreed that "Uniform motion is also change". August 14, 2017 3:28 PM. I'm still waiting.
BTW, that post is now added to my list of typical atheist "reasoning". Quite a long list now.
bmiller: "At least Strawdusty admitted he was equivocating. It seems you're tripling down on dumb."
False. It would actually be a lie were Stardusty to state that he has equivocated
Now you are quadrupling down on dumb. But I'm not surprised
In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a word in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.
He admitted " Its position relative to some other object is changing," but "No property of the object is changing." [quality perhaps?]. No such qualification was given in the original statement, hence an equivocation.
So you see? No big bad man is lying to you.
But it seems that once again, you've gotten off topic. Must be time for your nap.
When you wake up you may want to try to engage with actual arguments relevant to the topic.
In case you forgot:
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM
March 19, 2017 12:31 PM
July 22, 2017 2:39 PM
January 22, 2017 6:28 PM
February 12, 2017 5:59 PM
February 05, 2017 11:23 AM
February 07, 2017 11:25 AM
February 12, 2017 4:48 PM
May 23, 2017 8:40 PM
June 30, 2017 7:50 AM
March 19, 2017 2:14 PM
July 08, 2017 8:23 PM
May 07, 2017 12:07 PM
May 11, 2017 12:19 PM
May 18, 2017 8:37 PM
July 02, 2017 12:50 PM
July 09, 2017 7:53 AM
July 11, 2017 12:25 PM
August 06, 2017 1:11 PM
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html
July 10, 2017 at 8:46 PM
July 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM
July 11, 2017 at 8:40 AM
July 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM
July 13, 2017 at 10:19 AM
July 13, 2017 at 7:36 PM
July 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM
July 16, 2017 at 1:40 PM
July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM
July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM
July 18, 2017 at 7:53 PM
July 18, 2017 at 8:01 PM
July 19, 2017 at 5:39 AM
July 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM
July 20, 2017 at 9:26 PM
July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM
July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM
July 22, 2017 at 11:20 PM
July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
July 23, 2017 at 9:44 PM
July 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM
bmiller: "Since you insist on behaving like I child I will accommodate you and address you as one. Now I understand that big words and proper punctuation are difficult for some children but please try to follow along."
mkay.
bmiller: "Now now Little Cal, I didn't claim to be quoting anyone."
You used quote marks as you (mis)characterized what you thought I had said, and claimed that your mischaracterization was something that I had made explicit. No you try and cover your tracks, by claiming that "uniformly changing" is... a technical term? used in an unusual way? varying from the standard way that "uniformly changing" is used? Which one is it that you intended, exactly?
"Uniformly changing" is not a technical term.
"Uniformly changing" is not being used in an unusual way -- it has to be a usual term in order for its use to be unusual, and that is impossible with odd terms like the one you introduced.
"Uniformly changing" does not vary from standard usage, because it is an odd term, that has no standard use.
So, you remain stupid, on the wide, sturdy foundation of your dishonesty. Your poor moral character is the bedrock upon which you pile your comments here, and which serve as an impressive monument to the ways in which you can appear stupid.
bmiller: "However, I did ask you to defend your assertion that the phrase "uniform motion is not change" is not a contradiction according to "basic physics"."
Okay. From basic (classical) physics: "In every material universe, the motion of a particle in a preferential reference frame Φ is determined by the action of forces whose total vanished for all times when and only when the velocity of the particle is constant in Φ. That is, a particle initially at rest or in uniform motion in the preferential frame Φ continues in that state unless compelled by forces to change it."
That is how. That you are apparently unaware of the above can only be attributed to a kind of stupidity -- I'd guess a (false) pride, tied to your narcissism, that prevents you from learning new material because to do so would expose your prior ignorance. This is yet another way in which moral failing keep people stupid.
bmiller: "He admitted " Its position relative to some other object is changing," but "No property of the object is changing." [quality perhaps?]. No such qualification was given in the original statement, hence an equivocation."
Ha. If you think Stardusty was equivocating above you actually don't understand what an equivocation is, still.
Momentum is a physical property. Momentum is NOT changing in an object that is moving uniformly. So what Stardusty wrote above is both a) true, and b) consistent with itself.
bmiller's poor moral character allows him to place another brick of stupid on this, the monument he is building to the ways in which moral deficiencies make people stupider.
bmiller: "So you see? No big bad man is lying to you."
You are consistently dishonest. This dishonesty explains your otherwise inexplicable stupidity. Thank you for revealing the pathological relationship between character and intelligence -- something I had not fully appreciated before I first began online discussions with apologists.
bmiller "But it seems that once again, you've gotten off topic. Must be time for your nap. / When you wake up you may want to try to engage with actual arguments relevant to the topic. / In case you forgot:"
Your narcissism makes you stupider.
I started with your first reference (returning after having recognized it as irrelevant the first time). It remains as I had predicted -- irrelevant to the criticism carefully explicated showing how the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
Apparently, your poor moral character shall doom you to building monuments to your revealed stupidity.
@Little Cal,
You used quote marks as you (mis)characterized what you thought I had said, and claimed that your mischaracterization was something that I had made explicit.
Learn to read please. I explicitly said I wasn't quoting anyone.
That is how.
Again, learn how to read.
Your quote:
That is, a particle initially at rest or in uniform motion in the preferential frame Φ continues in that state unless compelled by forces to change it."
Strawdusty's quote:
an object in uniform motion is not changing
If a particle/object is in uniform motion it is not at rest and hence changing. The state that it is in is not changing. The quote from Strawdusty is clearly wrong. If he wants to correct it by saying that an object's state of motion is not changing it would then make more sense.
Ha. If you think Stardusty was equivocating above you actually don't understand what an equivocation is, still.
Then you can't read. The definition, what Strawdusty actually wrote, and my explanation of how it was an equivocation all escapes you. No surprise.
I started with your first reference (returning after having recognized it as irrelevant the first time). It remains as I had predicted -- irrelevant to the criticism carefully explicated showing how the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
No Little Cal. You merely claimed it was irrelevant without giving a reason why. That's called a mere assertion. If you have a substantial argument, I'll consider a response but it will have to be better than this latest drivel.
So Little Cal, please pay attention during reading time at your school. It seems this level of discussion is beyond your present level.
When it's been explained to you how your criticisms are wrong, and when you're all out of new ideas - you hurl insults.
Me: "You used quote marks as you (mis)characterized what you thought I had said, and claimed that your mischaracterization was something that I had made explicit."
bmiller: "Learn to read please. I explicitly said I wasn't quoting anyone. / That is how. / Again, learn how to read."
I do know how to read. After I pointed out that had dishonestly represented that YOUR terms and confusion were somehow mine (or Stardusty's), you backpedaled to try and claim that you meant to use the quotes to show that you were using the term "uniformly changing" as a technical term (False -- "uniformly changing" is not a technical term), or used in an unusual way (False -- "uniformly changing does not have a standard use, as it is a nonsensical term of your confused invention).
So, I do know how to read. You don't know how to be honest, or write clearly. Which makes sense, because your dishonesty prevents you from thinking clearly. As I have pointed out, your muddled and stupid thinking seems inextricably woven into your identifiable character flaws. Everything you write merely underlines how reliable this explanation seems.
bmiller: "If a particle/object is in uniform motion it is not at rest and hence changing."
Nope. An object in uniform motion is not changing. You don't understand basic physics. (Quelle surprise!)
bmiller: "The state that it is in is not changing."
An object without a change in state is an object that is not changing. You are apparently too stupid to apprehend that an object in uniform motion is an object that is not changing.
bmiller: "The quote from Strawdusty is clearly wrong. If he wants to correct it by saying that an object's state of motion is not changing it would then make more sense."
Nope. You are clearly stupid. An object in uniform motion is not changing its state, despite changes in position from one reference frame to the next. Your inability to apprehend this (basic) tenet of classical physics is best explained as a result of your narcissism, which apparently permits you to believe that anything you can't comprehend is mistaken.
bmiller: "No Little Cal. You merely claimed it was irrelevant without giving a reason why."
Nope. I first pointed out (here: August 11, 2017 6:12 AM) that the same stupidity that allows you think and write as you do is the same stupidity that will prevent you from understanding things like coherence, relevance, and intellectual value.
Then I pointed out (here: August 11, 2017 10:21 AM) that your comment -- which consisted almost entirely of a quote from Aquinas -- does NOT address the criticism explicated here concerning the obvious failings of the First Way -- that the First Way uses muddled language, equivocates, is unsound, contradicts itself, and is ad hoc (as specifically explicated in the links that Stardusty provided above).
So, you are just a little liar. Which partially explains how you have come this far in life and remain so broadly stupid.
@Little Cal,
I do know how to read.
No you don't. You still claim I was trying to quote someone after I demonstrated you don't know that quotation marks can be used in multiple ways. If I had wanted to attribute a quote to someone I would have explicitly done that, as I always do when I intend to.
This is priceless and I'm definitely adding it to my list:
In physics, motion is a change in position of an object over time.
"The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line."
Cal:
An object without a change in state is an object that is not changing. You are apparently too stupid to apprehend that an object in uniform motion is an object that is not changing.
Nope. You are clearly stupid. An object in uniform motion is not changing its state, despite changes in position from one reference frame to the next. Your inability to apprehend this (basic) tenet of classical physics is best explained as a result of your narcissism, which apparently permits you to believe that anything you can't comprehend is mistaken.
It is very entertaining to witness Little Cal claim that a thing moving from position A to position B over time is *motion*, but it is not really *motion* if the motion is uniform, in which case it is called a *state* which somehow means that no change has occurred (tell that to the billiard ball at position B). I wonder if he will figure out for himself what Newton meant by the word *state*.
Then I pointed out (here: August 11, 2017 10:21 AM) that your comment -- which consisted almost entirely of a quote from Aquinas -- does NOT address the criticism explicated here concerning the obvious failings of the First Way -- that the First Way uses muddled language, equivocates, is unsound, contradicts itself, and is ad hoc (as specifically explicated in the links that Stardusty provided above).
Little Cal. Try to focus. Quotes from Aquinas are relevant. Especially the section from the Summa Contra Gentiles that give the background for the First Way. Especially when the specific quote that addresses a specific bogus complaint before the complaint was even raised. The fact that you make unfounded assertions notwithstanding.
Since you can't address the first one, here is the list of the rest.
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM
March 19, 2017 12:31 PM
July 22, 2017 2:39 PM
January 22, 2017 6:28 PM
February 12, 2017 5:59 PM
February 05, 2017 11:23 AM
February 07, 2017 11:25 AM
February 12, 2017 4:48 PM
May 23, 2017 8:40 PM
June 30, 2017 7:50 AM
March 19, 2017 2:14 PM
July 08, 2017 8:23 PM
May 07, 2017 12:07 PM
May 11, 2017 12:19 PM
May 18, 2017 8:37 PM
July 02, 2017 12:50 PM
July 09, 2017 7:53 AM
July 11, 2017 12:25 PM
August 06, 2017 1:11 PM
August 06, 2017 1:11 PM
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html
July 10, 2017 at 8:46 PM
July 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM
July 11, 2017 at 8:40 AM
July 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM
July 13, 2017 at 10:19 AM
July 13, 2017 at 7:36 PM
July 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM
July 16, 2017 at 1:40 PM
July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM
July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM
July 18, 2017 at 7:53 PM
July 18, 2017 at 8:01 PM
July 19, 2017 at 5:39 AM
July 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM
July 20, 2017 at 9:26 PM
July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM
July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM
July 22, 2017 at 11:20 PM
July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
July 23, 2017 at 9:44 PM
July 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM
bmiller: “You still claim I was trying to quote someone…”
Nope. I pointed out that you used quote marks inappropriately, giving the false impression that you were quoting the skeptics here. In fact, the quote marks were around words of your invention.
When you tried to justify their use as appropriate by falsely claiming that the quotes indicated that you were using technical terms (False -- "uniformly changing" is not a technical term), or that they indicated that they were used in an unusual way (False -- "uniformly changing does not have a standard use, as it is a nonsensical term of your confused invention).
Once again, your dishonesty has made you so stupid that you deny the obvious and demonstrable fact described above. Thus, your dishonesty makes you stupider.
bmiller: “It is very entertaining to witness Little Cal claim that a thing moving from position A to position B over time is *motion*…”
It’s not very interesting, really — it’s actually very basic, and true.
bmiller: “…but it is not really *motion* if the motion is uniform, in which case it is called a *state* which somehow means that no change has occurred (tell that to the billiard ball at position B). I wonder if he will figure out for himself what Newton meant by the word *state*.”
You were doing okay at the start, but then you showed the extent to which basic material is too much for you. State refers to the state of an object (what Newton called a “body”), which in uniform motion does not change, even though an object’s position in a broader system is changing (uniformly).
This is all basic physics stuff, and your inability to make sense of it shows the extent to which your poor moral character has made you so stupid you can’t digest what high school sophomores normally learn.
bmiller: “Quotes from Aquinas are relevant. Especially the section from the Summa Contra Gentiles that give the background for the First Way. Especially when the specific quote that addresses a specific bogus complaint before the complaint was even raised.”
Indicate which criticism of the First Way you are addressing, and actually explicate how the quote from Aquinas refutes that criticism.
Or go on making false and meaningless claims like the above, or pasting your silly list that any random sampling will quickly reveal to be more of the scattered and irrelevant defense offered by you here. Whereas your comments reliably signify nothing, I think it’s illuminating to see how an intellect can be trapped in a prison of stupid fashioned from the walls of poor moral character.
@Little Cal,
Nope. I pointed out that you used quote marks inappropriately, giving the false impression that you were quoting the skeptics here. In fact, the quote marks were around words of your invention.
No, you accused me of lying.
Why, that's you. Bmiller, the liar. The liar who puts "uniformly changing" in quotes as if he is citing someone other than his own confused mind, made more stupid by his moral deficiencies -- in particular a willingness to be dishonest, and accept dishonesty.
Projection much?
You were doing okay at the start, but then you showed the extent to which basic material is too much for you. State refers to the state of an object (what Newton called a “body”), which in uniform motion does not change, even though an object’s position in a broader system is changing (uniformly).
Try to focus although that is hard for children.
You have just agreed with me that "uniformly changing" can have 2 senses. With respect to change in position over time and when considered as a *state*.
Now, read this again:
Strawdusty's quote:
an object in uniform motion is not changing
If a particle/object is in uniform motion it is not at rest and hence changing. The state that it is in is not changing. The quote from Strawdusty is clearly wrong. If he wants to correct it by saying that an object's state of motion is not changing it would then make more sense.
Ha. If you think Stardusty was equivocating above you actually don't understand what an equivocation is, still. August 16, 2017 11:00 AM
Did you notice the word "state" in his quote? I didn't either. Since no such distinction was made, it was an equivocation. I'm glad you now agree with me.
*For those with reading diabilities*, I purposely put "uniformly changing" and "state" in quotation marks, because the phrases are technical phrases in the context of this discussion.
Indicate which criticism of the First Way you are addressing, and actually explicate how the quote from Aquinas refutes that criticism.
Already did that. Indicate that you can actually read. Ooops, sorry, you just indicated that you can't.
Or go on making false and meaningless claims like the above, or pasting your silly list that any random sampling will quickly reveal to be more of the scattered and irrelevant defense offered by you here. Whereas your comments reliably signify nothing, I think it’s illuminating to see how an intellect can be trapped in a prison of stupid fashioned from the walls of poor moral character.
This is hilarious! This is why I stick around.
Right after he demonstrates he can't defend his claim, he makes "false and meaningless claims" that his opponent is "making false and meaningless claims"
My "atheist reasoning" list grows longer.
bmiller said...August 18, 2017 6:03 PM
Now, read this again:
Strawdusty's quote:
an object in uniform motion is not changing
" If a particle/object is in uniform motion it is not at rest and hence changing. "
--Why do you equate "not at rest" with "changing"?
You say an object "not at rest" is "changing".
Why? What about that object is changing? What property of the object is changing by virtue of its uniform motion?
Mass?
Energy?
Color?
Chemical composition?
Temperature?
"If he wants to correct it by saying that an object's state of motion is not changing it would then make more sense."
--An object in uniform motion simply is not changing by virtue of its uniform motion.
An accelerating object is changing.
A cooling object is changing.
A radiating object is changing.
An object in uniform motion is not changing.
Name the specific property of the object in uniform motion that is changing by virtue of being in uniform motion.
bmiller: “You have just agreed with me that "uniformly changing" can have 2 senses. With respect to change in position over time and when considered as a *state*.”
Wow. You appear too dishonest (or made too stupid by your dishonesty) to apprehend the plain text of my writing. In case you were confused by my parsing of the language above, you should have been clued in by writing that YOUR term “uniformly changing” is “a nonsensical term of your confused invention.” You are either stupid, or made stupider by your dishonesty. Either way, stupid is your outcome.
Stardusty: “Inertia is a description of the fact that an object in uniform motion is not changing.”
bmiller: “If a particle/object is in uniform motion it is not at rest and hence changing. The state that it is in is not changing. The quote from Strawdusty is clearly wrong. If he wants to correct it by saying that an object's state of motion is not changing it would then make more sense”
bmiller: “Did you notice the word "state" in his quote? I didn't either. Since no such distinction was made, it was an equivocation. I'm glad you now agree with me.”
Why would I agree with you that an object in uniform motion is changing — that would be stupid. I agree with Stardusty, and the description of modern physics, that for the purposes of describing an object’s properties (and the state that is described by those properties), an object in uniform motion is not changing.
bmiller: “Did you notice the word "state" in his quote? I didn't either. Since no such distinction was made, it was an equivocation. I'm glad you now agree with me.”
Ha. Stardusty uses the terms consistently, and in the ways used in basic (classical) physics. In classical physics momentum is a property of an object, so with an object at rest, or in uniform motion, both are in a constant state of momentum — meaning that their property of momentum is not changing. (When you go from one reference frame to another, p1=p2) You are so stupid that you think that Stardusty is using confusing or equivocating language, but in fact all you are revealing is that you are too stupid to agree to the stipulations of basic (classical) physics.
You think that what Stardusty has written conflicts with basic (classical) physics (it does not). You think that Stardusty’s straightforward descriptions of reality, which conform with basic physics, are an example of equivocation. In fact, you reveal that your dishonesty and inconsistency and narcissism are the best explanation for the your writing stupid conclusions, like “since no distinction was made, it was an equivocation.” (?!?!?!?!?)
bmiller: “*For those with reading diabilities*, I purposely put "uniformly changing" and "state" in quotation marks, because the phrases are technical phrases in the context of this discussion.”
What a sad little weasel you are. Technical phrases, as the examples from the link you provided make clear, are jargon or lexicon that are not commonly understood outside the community that uses it — not nonsensical terms of your own invention.
Sad.
Me: “Indicate which criticism of the First Way you are addressing, and actually explicate how the quote from Aquinas refutes that criticism.“
bmiller: “Already did that. Indicate that you can actually read. Ooops, sorry, you just indicated that you can’t.”
It’s obvious why you indicate which criticism of the First Way you are addressing, and actually explicate how the quote from Aquinas refutes that criticism — because you know how shabby real srutiny will reveal you supposed rebuttal to actually be.
Sad.
bmiller: “This is hilarious! This is why I stick around. / Right after he demonstrates he can't defend his claim, he makes "false and meaningless claims" that his opponent is "making false and meaningless claims"
Amazaing. Exactly one paragraph below you refusing to defend your claim (that your comment somehow offered a meaningful rebuttal of the First Way), you accuse someone else of doing what you just did.
Sad.
@Strawdusty,
Name the specific property of the object in uniform motion that is changing by virtue of being in uniform motion.
You said it yourself:
--Not precisely what I said. "an object in uniform motion is not changing". The object is not changing. Its position relative to some other object is changing, but the object is not changing. No property of the object is changing.
You have correctly attributed to the object "Its position relative to some other object" by using the possessive form of *it*. This position is not independent of the object and would not exist if the object did not exist and so is a *property* of the object. The change of this property of the object (Aristotle called it local motion) is what physics now defines as *motion*.
In physics, motion is a change in position of an object over time."
You are merely in agreement with Aristotle that the motion of a existing material object can have different senses. Local motion, and qualities can change independently of each other while neither are substantial changes to the object.
But I should point out to other readers that you do not defend your contention on the basis that uniform motion is a *state*, but instead that uniform motion is not a change of the object *full stop*. While this is odd, that seems to be your position.
I understand the general trajectory of this argument and I've addressed it before. Most recently here:
August 09, 2017 8:29 AM
>> Sad.
That reminds me. Some people believe that a demolished refinery is actually causing the wheels of a train to move. Because naturalism.
Sad!
Post a Comment