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.
Hmm. You understood the phrase "uniformly changing" perfectly in the context of this discussion community, while I doubt those outside would without supplying that context. Similary the word "state" could be understood differently outside this discussion. No doubt you will still disagree, but it certainly looks like you are projecting by attributing a false motive to me especially since I am not shy about specifically quoting you when I intend to. It's also typical that you were more interested in the motive of your opponent than the actual argument, which is irrelevant to the actual argument. But if irrationality is your strength, then by all means proceed. It's really funny.
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.
Learn to read. He didn't use the term *state* at all much less consistently. You were the only one who introduced momentum as far as I can tell. But let's examine your definition of momentum as being a property of an object, while "uniform motion" as used in the definition of inertia is not.
The definition of the momentum of an object is it's mass times it's velocity (mv). Zero velocity, zero momentum. Slow velocity, low momentum. Fast velocity, high momentum. Uniform velocity, uniform momentum (as long as mass does not change for all cases). If there is no such thing as the velocity of an object, there is no such thing as the momemtum of an object. So if velocity is not a property of an object, neither is momentum.
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.
More projection. But it seems you don't even understand the list of arguments you propose to defend else you would have recognized it when Strawdusty raised them in different forms. If you want to proceed, post the ones you think have not been refuted and I will post the appropriate refutation again.
Now some housekeeping. Since we have had a discussion of the proper use of quotations, you provided the following quote:
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."
You did not provide a citation so I could examine the context and qualifications of the source of the quote. Please provide the source and properly cite future quotes.
"In physics, motion is a change in position of an object over time. Motion is described in terms of displacement, distance, velocity, acceleration, time and speed. Motion of a body is observed by attaching a frame of reference to an observer and measuring the change in position of the body relative to that frame."
--You either did not read or did not understand your own cited reference.
A frame of reference is "attached", meaning it is arbitrary and relative and not a property of the object in question. Depending on the reference frame "attached" an object is simultaneously stationary, or moving at some velocity. For example, you can sit on the surface of the Earth and stare at a rock that seems stationary, because we tend to "attach" a frame of reference such that local Earth is said to be stationary. Yet, a different frame of reference will indicate movement at up to 1000mph, depending on latitude.
If uniform motion is a change for the rock then the rock both is and is not changing simultaneously, clearly an absurd assertion.
Position is not a property of an object, rather, it is a relationship with other objects.
A frame of reference is "attached", meaning it is arbitrary and relative and not a property of the object in question
Yes, the choice of a particular frame of reference is usually chosen to make the math simpler. No one claimed that a frame of reference was a property of an object.
Depending on the reference frame "attached" an object is simultaneously stationary, or moving at some velocity.
If you chose a reference frame, the object could be stationary or moving at some velocity wrt that reference frame according to an observer in that frame. Another observer chosing a different reference frame may have different observations.
If one equivocates between reference frames, one can confuse oneself. In the same way that one could confuse oneself by saying a door is both an exit and an entrance simultaneously which is absurd because exiting and entering are opposites.
If uniform motion is a change for the rock then the rock both is and is not changing simultaneously, clearly an absurd assertion. As it is to say a door is both and entrance and an exit (if one insists on equivocating).
Here are 2 quotes from your favorite reference. The velocity of an object is considered a physical property of the object.
bmiller: "Hmm. You understood the phrase "uniformly changing" perfectly in the context of this discussion community…”
Nope, exactly wrong (quelle surprise!). I pointed out that "uniformly changing“ is “a nonsensical term of your confused invention.”
You try to portray my expressing the above, impossibly, as meaning the opposite of what I wrote, instead writing the dishonest, “You understood the phrase "uniformly changing" perfectly..."
Only someone genuinely dishonest, faced with obvious and easily attainable facts that counter his falsehoods, can be as stupid as you make yourself appear.
bmiller: "Learn to read. He didn't use the term *state* at all much less consistently."
How stupid of you; you seem to imagine that someone could equivocate by not using a term. This is why people like Stardusty and I bother interacting with you — you not only get things wrong in a straightforward way, but you get things wrong in such preposterous ways that it boggles, and invites speculation and explanation.
Let’s see as you try to understand physics (again):
bmiller: “The definition of the momentum of an object is it's mass times it's velocity (mv).”
Yup.
bmiller: “Zero velocity, zero momentum.”
Yup.
bmiller: “Slow velocity, low momentum. Fast velocity, high momentum.”
If you mean that m * v < m * 2v, then yup!
bmiller: “Uniform velocity, uniform momentum (as long as mass does not change for all cases).”
m * v = m * v. Yup!
bmiller: “If there is no such thing as the velocity of an object, there is no such thing as the momemtum of an object.”
Said another way, an object with 0 velocity has no momentum.
bmiller: “So if velocity is not a property of an object, neither is momentum.”
Velocity is indeed a property of an object. What’s your point?
bmiller: “More projection. But it seems you don't even understand the list of arguments you propose to defend else you would have recognized it when Strawdusty raised them in different forms. If you want to proceed, post the ones you think have not been refuted and I will post the appropriate refutation again.”
I just did. You refused to do it, as you have always done.
But I’d love to see you focus one time, so I’ll try (again).
Here’s the exchange, regarding your supposed rebuttal (the first you reference in your silly list):
bmiller posts a silly list, pretending that the list references prior meaningful rebuttals.
I go to the first one. It is a few spare words from bmiller, followed by a rambling quote from Aquinas.
I point out that bmiller’s supposed rebuttals are what we all know they are — a kind of pretending, or crap.
bmiller continues to pretend: 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.” 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.”
So, go ahead. Answer my question. Show us what you think a meaningful rebuttal is.
>> Velocity is indeed a property of an object. What’s your point?
Object A exists at T=0. Only one reference frame is necessary. The velocity of Object A at T=0 is a nonsensical concept since velocity requires two different reference frames.
Velocity is indeed a property of an object. What’s your point? I doubt Strawdusty would agree with you. I think his project is to reify motion and separate it from existing things.
But if you read read the list, you would see that I included location in bold type also. A change in location is a change in a physical property of an object.
But Strawdusty doesn't think so. " 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.
Just like the measurement of momentum relies on the measurement of velocity, the measurement of velocity relies on the measurement of an object's location.
bmiller: “More projection. But it seems you don't even understand the list of arguments you propose to defend else you would have recognized it when Strawdusty raised them in different forms. If you want to proceed, post the ones you think have not been refuted and I will post the appropriate refutation again.”
I just did.
No you didn't. You listed posted zero arguments. Look up the word argument Little Cal.
I go to the first one. It is a few spare words from bmiller, followed by a rambling quote from Aquinas.
I'm sorry that you don't understand the actual arguments you propose to defend. Why don't you actually post an argument?
Good point regarding instantaneous velocity. Modern physicists assume the concept. Adherents of Scientism should consider themselves committed to it since *Science*. Funny to watch them jettison *Science* when they start to understand it.
@bmiller I haven't been keeping up on your latest comments but I posted that comment because it wasn't too long ago that we were told repeatedly that motion requires two reference frames. Properties don't.
Me: "Velocity is indeed a property of an object. What’s your point?" Stardusty: "I doubt Strawdusty would agree with you. I think his project is to reify motion and separate it from existing things."
As far as I can tell Stardusty and I agree about the facts of reality -- whether or not something is called one thing or another is largely irrelevant so long as the underlying facts and assumptions are understood.
bmiller: "But if you read read the list, you would see that I included location in bold type also. A change in location is a change in a physical property of an object."
I agree that location, velocity, and momentum could all be considered properties of an object, but they are also attachments to objects -- one doesn't get location, velocity, or momentum from an object alone, but in reference to an object in reference to something else.
Again, what is your point?
bmiller: "Just like the measurement of momentum relies on the measurement of velocity, the measurement of velocity relies on the measurement of an object's location."
One could just as easily say that space is not a property of an object, that space(time) is space(time) and that objects are properties that occuly it.
As far as I can tell Stardusty and I agree about the facts of reality -- whether or not something is called one thing or another is largely irrelevant so long as the underlying facts and assumptions are understood.
I disagree. Words have accepted meanings. When you agree with that an object's location/position is a property of that object and Strawdusty explictly says it is not a property of that object then to imply you are saying the same thing is nonsense.
Again, what is your point?
Strawdusty:"--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.
Location is a property of the object. If the location of an object is changing, then that property of the object is changing, so that object is changing. The statement is false.
See also the post from August 19, 2017 4:06 PM
Now I mentioned that it appears to me that Strawdusty is trying separate motion from existent objects. He has not replied, the many times I've suggested it, so I have to conclude that is his thought process. I disagree with that notion.
One could just as easily say that space is not a property of an object, that space(time) is space(time) and that objects are properties that occuly it.
Again, what is your point?
If one changed the subject from what constitutes changes to a particular object to what are the properties of space(time), then that would be the fallacy of Ignoratio elenchi.
But the topic is the First Way and the First Way makes reference to the motion of at least one particular material object changing. Now a particular object could change in 2 different ways. It could change in virtue of it's properties changing (accidental change) and still remain the same thing. It could also change is such a way that it is no longer the same thing (substantial or essential change). It is former sense of change the First Way is concerned with. Only an existing thing can cause another existing thing to change and so on.
bmiller: "No you didn't. You listed posted zero arguments. Look up the word argument Little Cal." Me: "I go to the first one. It is a few spare words from bmiller, followed by a rambling quote from Aquinas." bmiller: "I'm sorry that you don't understand the actual arguments you propose to defend."
You claimed to have refuted the criticisms offered here. You listed a reference to comments that you claim refute these criticisms. I went to the first referenced comment. It was irrelevant to the criticisms offered of the First Way -- to the many ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
I don't care that you can't refute the criticisms offered. But you're just lying when you say you have refuted them, as anyone looking at your reference list can see for themselves -- your comments are inconsequential to the criticisms offered, and are filled with examples of your hypocrisy, dishonest, and narcissism.
The fact that you can't actually elucidate how your post refutes a criticism of the First Way -- which criticism you are addressing, and how your refutation negates that criticism -- is another example of how your dishonesty blunts the already dull edge of your mind.
bmiller: " Why don't you actually post an argument?"
I have made my argument many times now, and I have indicated that I agree entirely with the more rigorous analysis provided by Stardusty. Our criticisms parallel and repeat on the same themes -- the many and obvious ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument. My criticisms of the First Way are my argument. The fact that you don't know what those criticisms are, and how it is obvious that the First Way violates the rules of good argument, is evidence of how stupid you must be.
" Location is a property of the object." --No, it isn't, it is an observed relationship within a system system, only incorrectly attributed as a property of the object.
" See also the post from August 19, 2017 4:06 PM" --You again did not read or did not understand your own reference.
You claimed to have refuted the criticisms offered here. You listed a reference to comments that you claim refute these criticisms. I went to the first referenced comment. It was irrelevant to the criticisms offered of the First Way
Nonsense. You don't even know what the "criticisms" are. Don't you pay attention at all? Where you not aware that Strawdusty repeatedly kept posting his list of nonsense "criticism"? Did you not even read his posts to see what his "criticisms" were? If you had you would have seen that the first 3 comments all address the same claim (as I pointed out). A claim that you yourself listed as failing to be addressed! August 04, 2017 6:00 AM. Hilarious!
The fact that you can't actually elucidate how your post refutes a criticism of the First Way -- which criticism you are addressing, and how your refutation negates that criticism -- is another example of how your dishonesty blunts the already dull edge of your mind.
Another act of projection.
bmiller: " Why don't you actually post an argument?"
I have made my argument many times now, and I have indicated that I agree entirely with the more rigorous analysis provided by Stardusty. Our criticisms parallel and repeat on the same themes -- the many and obvious ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument. My criticisms of the First Way are my argument. The fact that you don't know what those criticisms are, and how it is obvious that the First Way violates the rules of good argument, is evidence of how stupid you must be.
No you haven't made any arguments, you listed a bunch of erroneous assertions. You have no logical arguments. Neither does Strawdusty.
As demonstrated where I pointed it out in the following posts:
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
" Location is a property of the object." --No, it isn't, it is an observed relationship within a system system, only incorrectly attributed as a property of the object.
Thank you once again for the demonstration of the absurdity of arguing that *science* refutes the First Way by refuting *science* itself. Very entertaining.
" See also the post from August 19, 2017 4:06 PM" --You again did not read or did not understand your own reference.
I was referencing your post. You claimed that location was not a property of an object. Science as practiced in the West does consider it a property of an object as does Cal, unless now, you convince him to abandon *Science* as the ultimate reality.
" Location is a property of the object." SP --No, it isn't, it is an observed relationship within a system system, only incorrectly attributed as a property of the object.
" Thank you once again for the demonstration of the absurdity of arguing that *science* refutes the First Way by refuting *science* itself. Very entertaining." --Vacuous. Non-responsive.
" See also the post from August 19, 2017 4:06 PM" SP --You again did not read or did not understand your own reference.
" I was referencing your post." --Your reference in that series was a Wiki page you either did not read or did not understand.
From the first sentence of your linked reference: "A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system."
For there to be a location one necessarily needs to observe the relationship of one object to at least one other object in a system. Location is a description or observation of that system, not a property of the individual object.
An object in uniform motion does not itself undergo an intrinsic change. No property of the object is changing by virtue of its uniform motion. What changes is the observation or description of the system of objects.
BTW, Feser has another pulp fiction out on Amazon. Predictably his little gaggle of sycophants are fawning all over him about it. Billy finally got back to me with an "argument" that is pure imagination because he can't think of a single real example of a thing that changes absent a so called "local" motion. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/08/five-proofs-is-out.html?showComment=1503545097772#c804374861072498144
" I was referencing your post." --Your reference in that series was a Wiki page you either did not read or did not understand.
From the first sentence of your linked reference: "A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system."
I understand it perfectly well. It lists location as a physical property of an object as I quoted here: August 21, 2017 12:52 PM
You disagree with the scientific definition of what a physical property is. If you are going to argue that *science* refutes something, learn what *science* says.
Me: "What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise."
bmiller: "Read the [ lists 4 other posts ] ...where I listed these same posts almost 2 weeks ago."
No.
Me: "What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise."
It's obvious that you can't respond to my question without exposing how vacuous your claims to refutation actually are. Which is why you will try to avoid answering direct questions, because direct questions expose your stupidity, and how it is fueled by your hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism.
bmiller: "Words have accepted meanings. When you agree with that an object's location/position is a property of that object and Strawdusty explictly says it is not a property of that object then to imply you are saying the same thing is nonsense."
What I originally wrote,"Velocity is indeed a property of an object." was wrong.
I was working with the definitional understanding that anything that can be measured is a property, but Stardusty is correct in pointing out that the measurement of an object's location (upon which its velocity is dependent) requires something additional to the object per se -- a system in which location is tracked, independent of the object itself. So, calling velocity a property OF AN OBJECT can be misleading (as I wrote), because it risks implying that the velocity being tracked resides solely within the object per se, when in fact the velocity is a property of the relationship with at least one other object (a system).
bmiller: "You disagree with the scientific definition of what a physical property is. / If you are going to argue that *science* refutes something, learn what *science* says."
It's readily apparent that Stardusty knows far more about the physical sciences than anyone who's commented on this thread; your pretending to be something other than a home-schooled troll, made more stupid by the apologist trifecta of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism, is as laughable as Stevek's silly lie that he is a mechanical engineer.
Do you suppose that people who are regularly dishonest are more often on the right side, or the wrong side, of an argument? Does it ever occur to apologists that their dishonesty reveals that the only strategy they can resort to is pretending, and the only ones they seem to be fooling is themselves?
" What I originally wrote,"Velocity is indeed a property of an object." was wrong." --In terms of an intrinsic property that is changing in uniform motion such that an external changer is called for there are no such properties. However, people tend to speak in various terms in various circumstances for various purposes. In some of those circumstances it is considered that an object in uniform motion has just that, motion which is uniform, that motion being a velocity that is not changing, velocity being a speed in a direction.
In this way of speaking motion is a property of an object that does not change when in uniform motion, by definition of the word uniform.
Somebody like bmiller will read a wiki page with no concept of these various perspectives, latch onto a few words he thinks are dictated by "science" because they appear on a wiki page, and play endless whackamole with those words, probably because he gets some perverse pleasure from instigating responses to his willfully ignorant scattershot "arguments".
" I was working with the definitional understanding that anything that can be measured is a property," --Yes, but a property of what, and in what context, and denoting what?
If we want to say motion is an intrinsic property of an object then it does not change in uniform motion therefore no changer is called for.
If we wish to break motion down to postion changes over time and say position is changing then under inertia and object is able to change itself in this sense, and thus no changer is called fore.
If we take a systems approach to position then position is not a property of the object, rather, it is an observation of the system and it is the observer who assigns an arbitrary position to the object based on an arbitrary reference frame. Here motion is relative and the object in question could potentially be not intrinsically in motion yet be observed to be in motion because the reference frame is moving.
" your pretending to be something other than a home-schooled troll, made more stupid by the apologist trifecta of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism, is as laughable as Stevek's silly lie that he is a mechanical engineer." --Yes, while I generally hesitate to use the word troll because it is so often attributed to anybody who takes a contrary position, in this case the conclusion is a choice for bmiller between extreme trollishness, versus extremely delusional, versus extremely stupid.
bmiller: "Read the [ lists 4 other posts ] ...where I listed these same posts almost 2 weeks ago."
No.
It's obvious that you can't respond to my question without exposing how vacuous your claims to refutation actually are.
Look, I listed the post from Strawdusty and the 3 posts of mine addressed it in varying degrees of detail. It seems you not only can't read, can't understand what you do read, so now you just refuse to read at all. Amazing!
What I originally wrote,"Velocity is indeed a property of an object." was wrong.
No, you *were* right and now you *are* wrong. Location and velocity are properties of an object, considered *extrinsic* properties.
bmiller: "You disagree with the scientific definition of what a physical property is. / If you are going to argue that *science* refutes something, learn what *science* says."
It's readily apparent that Stardusty knows far more about the physical sciences than anyone who's commented on this thread;
Nonsense. If he had known what the heck he was talking about he would never have uttered his nonsense about location not being a property of an object. He now realizes his blunder and has added the qualification *intrinsic*.
Do you suppose that people who are regularly dishonest are more often on the right side, or the wrong side, of an argument?
Somebody like bmiller will read a wiki page with no concept of these various perspectives, latch onto a few words he thinks are dictated by "science" because they appear on a wiki page, and play endless whackamole with those words, probably because he gets some perverse pleasure from instigating responses to his willfully ignorant scattershot "arguments".
That's hilarious. It seems to me that wiki pages are the only thing you read since I've rarely seen you quote any other authority except *random internet guy*. But at least you've admitted your mistake by adding the *intrinsic* qualification. I assume you concede that location is an *extrinsic* property of an object now (but I'm probably wrong). But you have other problems.
" I was working with the definitional understanding that anything that can be measured is a property,"
--Yes, but a property of what, and in what context, and denoting what?
Read a physics book. If you can.
The topic was an object in motion. Location is a property of an object. So change of location of an object is a property of that object called velocity. Change of instantaneous velocity is also a property of an object called acceleration.
But if location is not a property of an object, then it is not a property of a thing. If it is not a property of a thing, then it is a property of nothing. Nothing does not exist and has no properties, so then location, velocity and acceleration must not exist.
Kinetic energy is ½mv². m refers to the mass of an object and v refers to the velocity of the object. If there is no such thing as the velocity of the object (uniform or otherwise), then it cannot be said an object has kinetic energy. The same can be said for momentum.
This all seems very mysterious to you. You don't seem to have any grounding in the physical sciences at all.
Me: "What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise." bmiller: "Look, I listed the post from Strawdusty and the 3 posts of mine addressed it in varying degrees of detail. It seems you not only can't read, can't understand what you do read, so now you just refuse to read at all. Amazing!"
Your claims are thus shown, yet again, to be completely vacuous. It's obvious that you can't do as I ask above, and that all you can do is pretend. You seem to think that others are as comfortable with dishonesty and pretending as you are, but that is not the case; you are transparently dishonest, and it makes you and all other apologists look as bad as, well, you are.
Me: "Do you suppose that people who are regularly dishonest are more often on the right side, or the wrong side, of an argument?" bmiller: "As a little projector, you should know."
By projector I think you mean psychological projection, which would mean that you think that I am regularly dishonest, and falsely accuse you of that which I am guilty.
Cite me being dishonest. Or (no way!) are you being dishonest when you pretend that that is the case?
bmiller: "This all seems very mysterious to you. You don't seem to have any grounding in the physical sciences at all."
You seem home-schooled, with no real (high school) level understanding of science. Your inability to recognize the vast imbalance in Stardusty's expertise and understanding versus your ignorance and stupidity about scientific principles and physical descriptions is not only breathtaking, but a powerful confirmation of the scale upon which the Dunning-Kruger effect can be seen. Until now, I would have guessed that Dunning Kruger broke down with the extremely low skilled, but it seems that it just ratchets up to improbable levels. Impressive indeed.
bmiller is correct about the property of velocity and location. It's the subject of philosophy of science. If an object has no relative location, it cannot have a relative location change over time and thus no relative velocity. If it has no relative velocity it has no relative motion.
Your claims are thus shown, yet again, to be completely vacuous.
If you refuse to read the posts all that is shown is that you won't engage in rational discussion. Once again. I guess that is beyond your capacity.
Regarding the subject of the physical sciences. If you have any actual counter-argument let's hear it. Otherwise it appears you are too ignorant to engage in the discussion much less judge the positions. Oh, and more irrational and irrelevant ad hominem attacks....ho hum. Pouty children will be pouty children. ☹
Cal has a such a girl crush on Dusty, the boy wonder of science, that he can't risk admitting that Dusty is wrong because then he'll get rebuffed. Relationship problems.
bmiller: "If you refuse to read the posts all that is shown is that you won't engage in rational discussion. Once again. I guess that is beyond your capacity."
I have read the posts. I have demonstrated that your claims of having refuted the criticisms showing why the First Way is a bad argument in those comments are completely vacuous.
Like all apologists, you can only imply that you have good answers elsewhere, NEVER in the place where people can evaluate it for themselves.
Pretend pretend pretend.
bmiller: "Regarding the subject of the physical sciences. If you have any actual counter-argument let's hear it."
You have made no meaningful response to the criticisms offered of the First Way. One observation regarding your inability is your obvious and glaring misapprehension of basic science. This observation is not an argument; it is an explanation for your failure, just as my explanation for your stupidity is that you are made dumber by your hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism. You fail to understand the dynamics behind even this simple discussion dynamic.
bmiller: "Otherwise it appears you are too ignorant to engage in the discussion much less judge the positions. Oh, and more irrational and irrelevant ad hominem attacks....ho hum. Pouty children will be pouty children."
I notice that you have failed to come up with a citation that demonstrates that I am the one who is regularly dishonest, not you.
How many examples of dishonesty do you think one needs to observe before writing you off as a kind of idiot, made stupider by his moral failings? Do you think your consistent dishonesty makes you somehow smarter, or do you think it makes you stupider? Have you ever wondered about that?
Also, don't forget:
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise
I have read the posts. I have demonstrated that your claims of having refuted the criticisms showing why the First Way is a bad argument in those comments are completely vacuous.
No you haven't. You haven't even engaged in the 4 posts I pointed you to August 24, 2017 5:22 PM (again).
Like all apologists, you can only imply that you have good answers elsewhere, NEVER in the place where people can evaluate it for themselves.
As I said before: "If you refuse to read the posts all that is shown is that you won't engage in rational discussion. Once again. I guess that is beyond your capacity."
Your latest post removes all doubt.
bmiller: "Regarding the subject of the physical sciences. If you have any actual counter-argument let's hear it."
You have made no meaningful response to the criticisms offered of the First Way. One observation regarding your inability is your obvious and glaring misapprehension of basic science. This observation is not an argument; it is an explanation for your failure, just as my explanation for your stupidity is that you are made dumber by your hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism. You fail to understand the dynamics behind even this simple discussion dynamic.
Coward.
This is my rating of your latest post. More childish rants, name calling, projection and lack of factual content or rational argument. In other words another typical Little Cal pout-fest.
Cal has a such a girl crush on Dusty, the boy wonder of science, that he can't risk admitting that Dusty is wrong because then he'll get rebuffed. Relationship problems.
Heh heh.
Yes, it must really be strong, for Little Cal to give up on *science*. That was the only argument he had in his arsenal other than calling people *poopy heads*.
Me: "I have read the posts." bmiller: "No you haven't."
Um, yes, I have; I've followed this entire thread. You are (surprise) dishonest, which makes you wrong, which is another way of saying that you are stupid.
Me: "I have demonstrated that your claims of having refuted the criticisms showing why the First Way is a bad argument in those comments are completely vacuous. bmiller: "You haven't even engaged in the 4 posts I pointed you to August 24, 2017 5:22 PM (again)."
I would indulge your silly narcissism by re-reading more of your vacuous content.
No, we should start with your silly claim (that you have refuted the criticisms of the First Way) by examining the very first comment you cited as having done so.
If you aren't a hypocritical, dishonest narcissist, made more stupid by your moral deficiencies, you would respond to this question, per the silly claim you tried to pawn off:
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
Me: "I have read the posts." bmiller: "No you haven't."
Um, yes, I have;
You've given no indication that you have, so where is the evidence that you did? You specifically refused to read the 4 posts I listed in response to your request.
If you aren't a hypocritical, dishonest narcissist, made more stupid by your moral deficiencies, you would respond to this question, per the silly claim you tried to pawn off:
I responded multiple times already little projector.
I suspect that you want to stop looking foolish by discussing the actual content of the posts and prefer look foolish by arguing ad hominem and other various irrelevant fallacies. I suppose by limiting yourself to only fallacies of irrelevance you avoid displaying your full range of lack of logical thought processes. Don't worry, we all have noticed anyway.
Now if you don't understand the contents of the posts, then I can help you. Just ask.
bmiller: "Now if you don't understand the contents of the posts, then I can help you. Just ask."
Okay.
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
Answered here: August 24, 2017 5:22 PM. Now if you don't understand the contents of the posts, then I can help you. Just ask.
Me: "I have read the posts." bmiller: "No you haven't."
Um, yes, I have;
Since you still have provided no evidence that you did, I have to conclude that you aren't telling the truth. Especially since you've accused all of your opponents of lying. This is a symptom of projection as I understand.
Now that we both have our amateur psychological analysis expressed, why don't you proceed to show me I'm wrong about you lying. You can start to do that by breifly summarizing what you think is specifically wrong with the responses I posted.
In case you forgot 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 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
Me: "What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? Try to be precise, specific, and concise." bmiller: Answered here: August 24, 2017 5:22 PM. [<--this comment lists 5 other posts that supposedly answer the incredibly simple question above.] Now if you don't understand the contents of the posts, then I can help you. Just ask."
I have. You keep dodging by listing posts that have nothing to do with refuting the criticisms of the First Way. It's clear by your responses that moral failings (hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism) have made you too stupid to see how obvious your hand-waving is.
bmiller: "Now if you don't understand the contents of the posts, then I can help you. Just ask."
I keep on asking. You keep running away, instead of facing how your obvious hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism make your movements as obvious as a rat in a maze.
Why won't you answer this question:
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
The answer is obvious to the rest of us (you don't understand the criticisms of the First Way, and your pride prevents you from accepting the extent to which your imagined skills are revealed as stupidity when examined with some rigor). You are the only one who fails to see how stupid you are, because your hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism have imprisoned you in a cage of stupidity that you seem unwilling to escape.
Just answer the question:
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
bmiller: "Since you still have provided no evidence that you did, I have to conclude that you aren't telling the truth. Especially since you've accused all of your opponents of lying. This is a symptom of projection as I understand." / Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. / "Now that we both have our amateur psychological analysis expressed, why don't you proceed to show me I'm wrong about you lying. You can start to do that by breifly summarizing what you think is specifically wrong with the responses I posted."
Ha.
This is not a he said / she said disagreement. You were challenged upthread to provide an example of my dishonesty, and you have yet to cite me being dishonest.
You, on the other hand, are dishonest in practically everything you write.
Starting with accusing me of projecting my dishonesty onto you -- an accusation easily falsified by your inability to cite me actually being dishonest.
You are a morally repugnant character, and your moral failings make you stupider.
bmiller links to a bunch of posts that he misrepresents as refuting the criticisms of the First Way offered here.
I look at the first link. It does not refute any criticism of the First Way offered here.
I ask, "What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? Try to be precise, specific, and concise."
bmiller responds by providing the same list of links again, and then states, "Now if you don't understand the contents of the posts, then I can help you. Just ask."
After that, I repeat the question (or bmiller cites my question) 9 more time.
After being asked 10 times, bmiller never does what he said he would do --answer my simple question -- if I just ask.
Typical here (an exchange where Stardusty has to correct the science ignorance of the apologists):
Stevek: "Litmus paper changes colors without changing physical position." Stardusty: "--Wrong. Molecules move into the fibers of the paper. Photons move to the paper and then to your eye.
Stevek: "A block of steel rusts without moving to some new location." Stardusty: "--Wrong. Oxygen atoms move to join iron atoms in the steel. The surface physically moves with respect to the internal structure as it transitions from smooth steel to rough rust."
Stevek: "Your body heats up without moving across the room." Stardusty: "--Heat is motion, don't you know that?"
After so many of these exchanges, bmiller is made so stupid by his dishonesty that he writes:
bmiller (to Stardusty): "You don't seem to have any grounding in the physical sciences at all."
bmiller is entirely dishonest. Which helps the extent of his stupidity.
Little Cal points out what he thinks are problems with the First Way: "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"
August 04, 2017 6:00 AM
Item 1 on his list: March 12, 2017 9:25 AM: ." 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)."
Item 1 on my list (repeated in items 2 and 3): March 18, 2017 10:47 AM "[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."
Little Cal said: 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.
It's simply unbelievable to witness someone challenge an opponent to respond to some erroneous criticism and then for them to forget or misunderstand their own criticism when confronted with a direct response. Stop being dishonest little projector.
What I am about to say has been said before many times in this thread.
The First Way establishes that for observed existing material objects to be in motion requires an Unmoved Mover. Being the Unmoved Mover is one description of God, but is not exhaustive of all His attributes. That is why this particular criticism is irrelevant in the first place (as are most of the others).
The First Way does not establish that the Unmoved Mover does anything but cause the motion of all material objects, so complaints the Unmoved Mover is thinking or not simply do not apply to this argument.
Cal: "I have read the posts." bmiller: "No you haven't."
Cal:Um, yes, I have;
Since you still have provided no evidence that you did, I have to conclude that you aren't telling the truth. Especially since you've accused all of your opponents of lying. This is a symptom of projection as I understand.
Cal:"You were challenged upthread to provide an example of my dishonesty, and you have yet to cite me being dishonest.
I just did. Prove me wrong. Show me evidence you read them. Maybe now you will actually read the posts.
The only people who should be embarrassed by those quotes are Dusty and Cal. Dusty for 'correcting' me about something I never claimed. Oops. Cal for thinking it demonstrates Dusty's superior intellect. Nope.
bmiller: "Item 1 on my list (repeated in items 2 and 3): / March 18, 2017 10:47 AM "[10] It is to be noted, however, that Plato, who held that every mover is moved... 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: "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: "Because they are irrelevant to the problems pointed out in the First Way. /Repeating mistakes doesn't fix the mistake; it just demonstrates stupidity."
The best I can now guess is that you think you are addressing a criticism regarding the First Way revolving around soundness -- the criticism being that an unmoved mover is incoherent -- as you now (finally) indicate that your March 18, 2017 10:47 AM comment is to be understood as responding to Stardusty's comment on March 18, 2017 10:47 AM.
Do you think that a fallacious response is a relevant criticism?
Do you understand that -- Because so-and-so believed this, therefore it is so -- is a fallacy?
As I have requested, and am still waiting for (unless you think your comments are somehow not clear examples that you are easily duped by fallacious reasoning), "... how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? Try to be precise, specific, and concise."
To help you out here, all you have done in your repetitive quotations is assert what others have believed, NOT what is, in fact, correct in reality. They are (hence, fallacy) different things. And as I have indicated, a fallacious response can be safely ignored, because it is (by definition) irrelevant to the point being addressed.
How do you think that your comments actually refute the criticism regarding motion not moving? Use your own words. Show us why you think what you do. Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
Cal "Do you think that a fallacious response is a relevant criticism?
Do you understand that -- Because so-and-so believed this, therefore it is so -- is a fallacy? "
Every one of your criticisms is based on this fallacy. Every. One.
a) Because so-and-so believes Aquinas meant X rather than Y b) Because so-and-so believes that physics can disprove the FW c) Because so-and-so believes the FW is necessarily about origins d) Because so-and-so believes that demolished refineries cause train wheels to move today e) Because so-and-so believes there is a contradiction in the argument f) Because so-and-so believes the FW isn't about God g) Because so-and-so believes that macro level observation are illusions h) Because so-and-so believes there is a problem with 2a-2f i) Because so-and-so believes that approximations are necessarily wrong/untrue j) Because so-and-so believes that NO object has the property of location
The best I can now guess is that you think you are addressing a criticism regarding the First Way revolving around soundness -- the criticism being that an unmoved mover is incoherent -- as you now (finally) indicate that your March 18, 2017 10:47 AM comment is to be understood as responding to Stardusty's comment on March 18, 2017 10:47 AM.
Now I'm actually feeling sorry for you. You provide a list of criticisms, I respond and you apparently don't even know what the first item on your list was. I originally thought that you were just messing with me. But now it appears that you really don't know what's going on. I thought listing all the relevant posts August 24, 2017 5:22 PM would give even the most clueless all they needed, but alas. I'm sorry that I assumed too much of you.
Do you think that a fallacious response is a relevant criticism?
Strawdusty's criticism was irrelevant as I demonstrated. In fact it was not only irrelevant, it was ignorant since the link to the quote was provided on the very comment on the post. However, if the topic had been The Intellect of God then the criticism would have been relevant but fallacious.
However, you claimed the quote in the post was irrelevant to Strawdusty's "criticism". That is false.
Cal:"You were challenged upthread to provide an example of my dishonesty, and you have yet to cite me being dishonest.
Here is another example. Just as your claim to have read all of the responses I listed was. I can list more, but I'd rather debate the content of posts related to the debate rather than discuss your personality issues.
Do you understand that -- Because so-and-so believed this, therefore it is so -- is a fallacy?
Well, I'm not like you who *now* believes that location is not a property of an object just because Strawdusty says so. Is SteveK right? Do you really have such a crush on him that you are now a *Science Denier*? Regardless, no one made that kind of argument other than what you are doing now wrt Strawdusty's post.
To help you out here, all you have done in your repetitive quotations is assert what others have believed,
Once again proof you did not read the posts, projector Little Cal.
BTW, I agree with SteveK regarding your "criticisms". Since you are a projector, and incapable of mounting an actual argument, all you can do is point to what your *crush* has told you, so you accuse your opponents of doing what you in fact are doing.
Now I will make a "prediction". Little Cal will continue to insult and refuse to defend and debate Strawdusty's irrelevant and ultimately fallacious "criticism". Any bets?
bmiller: "Now I'm actually feeling sorry for you. You provide a list of criticisms, I respond... I assumed too much of you."
If you don't know how to cite so as to make your thinking clear, and when your comments are clearly fallacious, you will continue to fail to adequately communicate your "thinking". This is a common problem for narcissists -- they struggle to imagine that others do not share their own, private thoughts, nor think as they do. This disorganization makes you stupider.
bmiller: "Strawdusty's criticism was irrelevant as I demonstrated."
No. You made a fallacious response -- that a criticism of Aquinas's argument (that an unmoved mover is incoherent) is somehow not incoherent because Aquinas has declared that it is not incoherent. This is straightforward fallacious reasoning. You have made no relevant response to the criticism, just shown that you are susceptible to fallacious thinking.
bmiller: "However, you claimed the quote in the post was irrelevant to Strawdusty's "criticism". That is false."
How are fallacies relevant if they cannot overturn the point they are attempting to refute?
bmiller: "Here is another example. Just as your claim to have read all of the responses I listed was. I can list more, but I'd rather debate the content of posts related to the debate rather than discuss your personality issues."
You confuse the fact that you write amateurishly and are prone to fallacious thinking with my not reading what has been written. Your narcissism has led you to the false conclusion that I have not read this entire thread (something that I'm not proud of, really), and to have made the patently stupid assertion that I have not, when my regular commenting throughout indicates that I have.
Your false accusation is another testament to your dishonesty, and shows that your suggestion that I am projecting my dishonesty onto you is just another example of your pathological thinking, which I think is a product of your moral failings.
bmiller: "Well, I'm not like you who *now* believes that location is not a property of an object just because Strawdusty says so. Is SteveK right? Do you really have such a crush on him that you are now a *Science Denier*?"
bmiller: "Regardless, no one made that kind of argument other than what you are doing now wrt Strawdusty's post."
The above sentence is what I mean by your amateurish and undisciplined writing. You imagine that your demonstrative pronouns above refer to something clear and obvious, when in fact they do not -- good luck to anyone figuring out exactly what "that kind of argument" refers to, or "what you are doing now wrt to Strawdusty's post" means.
I asked you to be precise, concise, and specific for a reason; you consistently fail to be so, and that is why you struggle to think clearly, and more so is why seem so frustrated at not being understood.
@bmiller, your last post was another long-winded whine in which you have, yet again, failed to defend from the obvious conclusion that you think that a fallacy -- that a criticism of Aquinas's argument (that an unmoved mover is incoherent) is somehow not incoherent because Aquinas has declared that it is not incoherent -- is a relevant response to that criticism.
How do you think that your comments actually refute the criticism regarding motion not moving? Use your own words. Show us why you think what you do. Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
I doubt bmiller wants to rehash the past 8 months. You failed to understand it the first time and what has changed since? Nothing.
If an unmoved Mover seems incoherent to you then keep learning. That incoherency is evidence that you need more information. There's more to God than what the FW argument tells you.
stevek: "If an unmoved Mover seems incoherent to you then keep learning."
" Sure, I'd love to -- what's an example of an unmoved thing causing a motionless thing to move."
Of course, SteveK will never come up with such an example. Bmiller may well repeat his above vague and pointless quote about Plato and Aristotle. Then there is the question of what precisely is being claimed, is it that "unchanged" means never changing at all, or does it mean that nothing else changed it but it changed itself and is presently changing, or does it mean that nothing else changed it but it has always been changing and is still changing?
Aside from it irrationality of asserting that a thing can impart change without itself undergoing any sort of change, there is the irrationality of calling for an ontological first changer, a sustaining cause for existence, which led me to post the below elsewhere:
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.
Dusty "Then there is the question of what precisely is being claimed, is it that "unchanged" means never changing at all, or does it mean that nothing else changed it but it changed itself and is presently changing, or does it mean that nothing else changed it but it has always been changing and is still changing?"
After reading the text of the argument, and after Legion defined "change" at Cal's request, and after months of back and forth comments - you STILL don't know what it means? I don't think anyone can help you.
Now I will make a "prediction". Little Cal will continue to insult and refuse to defend and debate Strawdusty's irrelevant and ultimately fallacious "criticism". Any bets?
Gee I was right. Ho hum.
If you don't know how to cite so as to make your thinking clear, ...This disorganization makes you stupider.
Like I said, I assumed you could read and keep the context straight. I was wrong.
Let me refresh you with the context:
1) You posted a list of erroneus Strawdusty comments August 04, 2017 6:00 AM.
2) Strawdusty posted his longer erroneous list of arguments on August 08, 2017 6:50 AM.
3) I directly quoted him and responded with my list August 08, 2017 8:52 PM. The list was a direct response to both his list and your's (which was merely a subset of his).
Now the list that you cited was the only list of actual arguments that you have referred to AFAIK (assertions are not arguments). Then you claim an item of my list does not address any arguments against the First Way. What other list did you think the list I posted referred to?
How are fallacies relevant if they cannot overturn the point they are attempting to refute?
You are ignorant of different types of fallacies.
Fallacies of irrelevance are called ignoratio elenchi or missing the point. This is the general type of fallacy that you and Strawdusty routinely engage in, such as the genetic fallacy and ad hominem.
For instance, ." For example if this speculated god made a decision to “move” the substances of existence that decision itself was a “movement”. is this type of fallacy because the First Way does not claim the Unmoved Mover makes any decisions at all. If you think it does, post it.
However, the quote from the SCG is relevant to the irrelevant and ignorant criticism of Strawdusty's post. It directly addresses that criticism by drawing a distinction between the movement Aristotle was referring to, that of exiting material objects, and the immaterial (things that are not subject to material restrictions).
You confuse the fact that you write amateurishly...
Look Cal it's clear you don't understand what anyone is discussing including Strawdusty and showed us that fact most recently regarding *properties* of an object and *states* of motion. So you're confusing your lack of reading ability with others' lack of writing ability.
.... Your narcissism ...
So you resort to projection.
when my regular commenting throughout indicates that I have.
and dishonesty. Your comments indicate that you only read the first one. I have no reason to believe you especially since you are projecting others as being dishonest. Give me some evidence by engaging the content of the posts and I may change my mind.
The above sentence is what I mean by your amateurish and undisciplined writing. You imagine that your demonstrative pronouns above refer to something clear and obvious
The quote of mine you are referring to was in reference to your question which I included for context (and you did not): Do you understand that -- Because so-and-so believed this, therefore it is so -- is a fallacy?
But since you have comprehension problems, I will go over the point again.
Now, I assume that by your mischaracterization you were claiming I am making an invalid argument from authority. Aquinas is an authority on the First Way, referring to his quote is valid.
However, you accepted the authority of a crank as valid and thereby have become a *Science denier*. Understood so far?
So since Aquinas is a valid authority and Strawdusty is not a valid authority, the only one that has made an invalid argument from authority is you. In fact as far as I can remember you have not made any arguments of your own against the First Way. Although you make plenty of baseless assertions, fling insults and project like crazy.
Me: "How do you think that your comments actually refute the criticism regarding motion not moving? Use your own words. Show us why you think what you do. Try to be precise, specific, and concise."
And finally, we start to get an explanation. Finally.
And it's exactly as sad as I thought it was.
bmiller: "Now, I assume that by your mischaracterization you were claiming I am making an invalid argument from authority. Aquinas is an authority on the First Way, referring to his quote is valid."
Nope. You don't understand the fallacy of argument from authority. By your thinking, no one can be wrong about anything they think, because they are the authority on what they think.
But arguments aren't evaluated by whether or not their proponents or authors say they believe them; they're evaluated by the rules of good argument. And those rules include soundness. You fail to understand this, which makes you seem (after all this) profoundly, profoundly stupid.
bmiller: "However, you accepted the authority of a crank as valid and thereby have become a *Science denier*. Understood so far?"
Nope. You seem to think that because I accepted one definition based on a set of criteria (anything measurable is a property), and subsequently agreed that there are problems regarding this definition related to the point being discussed and that I should make those delineations more clear, that I am science denier. This is an opposite of science, which accepts refinement, and moves on. Your mischaracterization makes you seem quite stupid.
bmilelr: "So since Aquinas is a valid authority and Strawdusty is not a valid authority..."
The only authority regarding reality, and arguments that try to explain reality, is reality. You fail to understand the basic tenet of argument, and that foundation of science. Yes, your actual words reveal (surprise!) that your thinking is that profoundly stupid.
bmiller: "...the only one that has made an invalid argument from authority is you."
mkay.
bmiller: "In fact as far as I can remember you have not made any arguments of your own against the First Way. Although you make plenty of baseless assertions, fling insults and project like crazy."
Sigh. I have explained so many times that one doesn't make "arguments" for a bad argument; one criticizes a bad argument, and points out how it fails to abide by the rules of good argument, and can be tossed aside.
You seem incapable of learning. I explain this as a result of your moral deficiencies, to which I'll add, pride.
Nope. You don't understand the fallacy of argument from authority. By your thinking, no one can be wrong about anything they think, because they are the authority on what they think.
No, you don't understand the fallacy even though I provided the definition here:August 13, 2017 4:57 PM. You are dishonest (again) by asserting that I claimed that a quote from *any* authority is other than evidence to support my position. But in light of our recent exchanges, am I being too demanding and critical? Are you honestly this way? If so, I apoligize for the harsh tone.
Nope. You seem to think that because I accepted one definition based on a set of criteria (anything measurable is a property), and subsequently agreed that there are problems regarding this definition related to the point being discussed and that I should make those delineations more clear, that I am science denier. This is an opposite of science, which accepts refinement, and moves on. Your mischaracterization makes you seem quite stupid.
OK, I amend my accusation. You are not only a *science denier*, but a *dishonest science denier*. You'll be telling me dinosaurs lived with humans next!
The only authority regarding reality, and arguments that try to explain reality, is reality. You fail to understand the basic tenet of argument, and that foundation of science. Yes, your actual words reveal (surprise!) that your thinking is that profoundly stupid.
This explains a lot. You apparently don't read books since they are written by people who have studied certain things and thereby have acquired an expertise and have become authorities. You let *reality* explain *reality* to you. You really must be stupid to have spent money on college just to have them assign you to read books by *authorities* to find out about *reality*. This is definitely going into my archives.
Sigh. I have explained so many times that one doesn't make "arguments" for a bad argument; one criticizes a bad argument, and points out how it fails to abide by the rules of good argument, and can be tossed aside.
Translation: I don't know what the heck the entire discussion is about. This is like 10x over my head and the best I can do is avoid making myself look any more ridiculous than I already have. Maybe if invent phrases like "rules of good argument" and imaginary rules like "one doesn't make "arguments" for a bad argument; one criticizes a bad argument,"that I can equivocate on later that will buy me enough time till my obnoxiousness repels them enough to give up.
So first, I will never give up. Second, I will be happy to explain the First Way to you the best as I understand it without animosity, but if you want me to explain it to you with animosity, then so be it. Third, if you have no interest in the topic and merely want to hang around and exchange insults, then bring it on. If the objective is sarcasm, game on!
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM: ." 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)."
Once again: 1) Your argument is irrelevant to the First Way. The First Way only establishes the existence of the Unmoved Mover. It is silent on whether the Unmoved Mover makes decisions or not. Like most of your posts, this one misses the point. 2) Your argument was ignorant. Meaning that you were unaware that your contention had already been addressed by the author of the First Way 800 years ago. 3) Your argument was inexcusably ignorant. The first comment in this post linked to the section of the SCG in which the reasoning of the First Way was explained.
Cal claims that the quote from Aquinas from the SCG is an invalid appeal to authority. 1) The quote explains the distinction of the change of potency to act characteristic of existing material things to that of the intellect and will of the Unmoved Mover. It is once again irrelevant *who* makes the argument so it misses the point to focus on the author rather than the argument 2) It is hilarious to witness someone claiming that quoting the author of the First Way in the process of explaining the First Way is an invalid appeal to authority.
Bmiller may well repeat his above vague and pointless quote about Plato and Aristotle.
Once again you display your ignorance. You choose to criticize things you have no knowledge of and then complain you don't understand when shown what the author meant. On top of that, you choose to stay ignorant by refusing to read the relevant material that would cure your ignorance.
When things don’t change then things don’t change..... Thus the Thomistic explanation becomes that when things don’t change an unchanged changer is continuously changing them to not change.
That series of sentences displays 1) a profound ignorance of what you're attempting to criticize 2) and so a mischaracterization of Thomism 3) so yet another irrelevant criticism of the First Way 4) a profound ignorance of science including conservation laws 5) a profound lack of reasoning ability 6) refusal to acknowledge that all of your confused points have been addressed, while you have remained silent in return.
As was pointed out here: August 09, 2017 8:29 AM
But first here: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
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.
After reading the text of the argument, and after Legion defined "change" at Cal's request, and after months of back and forth comments - you STILL don't know what it means? I don't think anyone can help you.
Right.
Most people would be embarrassed by their lack of reading comprehension, but I guess some like to show it off.
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM: ." 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)."
" Once again: 1) Your argument is irrelevant to the First Way. The First Way only establishes the existence of the Unmoved Mover. It is silent on whether the Unmoved Mover makes decisions or not. " --Whack-a-mole trollistic blather. I anticipated and addressed this objection. You are either too stupid to read the words from the very passage you quoted or simply dishonest, perhaps both.
Dishonest is a person of science who says macro-level observations are an illusion Dishonest is a person of science who says demolished refineries cause train wheels to move Dishonest is a person of science who says no object has the property of location
" Dishonest is a person of science who says macro-level observations are an illusion" --They are macro level approximations. To the extent that they converge on reality we consider those to be valid approximations.
What is yellow? Is it an illusion? There is no qualitative difference between electromagnetic radiation of different wavelengths. Further one will perceive a shade of yellow by observing spectrally pure radiation, that is monochromatic radiation of a particular wavelength. However, one will perceive the same shade of yellow if a broad spectrum of red and green light is observed. So we see the same thing even though the radiation wavelenghts received are very different.
Thus, in that sense, yellow is an illusion. Yet it is a real experience that does in fact correlate with certain real differences in received radiation, so in that sense yellow is a valid approximation.
" Dishonest is a person of science who says demolished refineries cause train wheels to move" --The activities in the refinery are part of a vastly complex temporal causal series, an "accidental" series, as is every causal series. There is no such thing as an "essential" causal series. Simultaneity of cause and effect do not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes thought of as the infinitesimal, inside which there can be no series.
" Dishonest is a person of science who says no object has the property of location" --An object does not "know" its own location in isolation. An object does have a particular mass/energy independent of anything else. Location is a property of a system of which the object is part, and location is associated with an object at the system level.
" Dusty is that dishonest person of science" --If you had taken physics for engineers and calculus for engineers as all engineering students of all engineering specialties must take then you would know all of my above points, but you don't, so I conclude you didn't and you are therefore a liar regarding your claim of education.
--They are macro level approximations. To the extent that they converge on reality we consider those to be valid approximations.
A macro bullet at macro uniform velocity aimed at your head will make you macro-ly perfectly dead. No approximation necessary. You are Woo-fully deluded.
" Dishonest is a person of science who says demolished refineries cause train wheels to move" --The activities in the refinery are part of a vastly complex temporal causal series, an "accidental" series, as is every causal series. There is no such thing as an "essential" causal series. Simultaneity of cause and effect do not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes thought of as the infinitesimal, inside which there can be no series.
No only don't you know what you're talking about regarding accidental and essentially ordered series, you insist that non existent objects cause existent objects to change. That is not science. And BTW, in modern calculus classes (and by that I mean in your lifetime) derivatives are not taught using the concept of the "infinitesimal". Another demonstration of your ignorance of math and science to go along with your ignorance of philosophy.
" Dishonest is a person of science who says no object has the property of location" --An object does not "know" its own location in isolation. An object does have a particular mass/energy independent of anything else. Location is a property of a system of which the object is part, and location is associated with an object at the system level.
This is gibberish and not simply unrelated thoughts following no particular order, but in fact contradictory gibberish. You claim that location is not a property of an object contrary modern physics. By contrast you claim that "An object does have a particular mass/energy independent of anything else".
August 26, 2017 9:41 PM Kinetic energy is ½mv². m refers to the mass of an object and v refers to the velocity of the object. If there is no such thing as the velocity of the object (uniform or otherwise), then it cannot be said an object has kinetic energy.
Is SteveK right that you are dishonest? I think you are just a *Science Denier*. You may just as well be arguing for a flat earth.
--If you had taken physics for engineers and calculus for engineers as all engineering students of all engineering specialties must take then you would know all of my above points,
How the heck would you know what goes on in a calculus course. First semester calculus students learn to grasp the concept of instanteous velocity by studying limit theory and derivatives. People who have actually taken calculus know you don't know what you're talking about. Talk about dishonest.
1) Your argument is irrelevant to the First Way. The First Way only establishes the existence of the Unmoved Mover. It is silent on whether the Unmoved Mover makes decisions or not. " --Whack-a-mole trollistic blather. I anticipated and addressed this objection. You are either too stupid to read the words from the very passage you quoted or simply dishonest, perhaps both.
I read your quote and understand it. It is an inexcusably ignorant argument. The First Way starts with the premise that we perceive existing material objects in motion. The author of the First Way explained the sense of motion discussed in the First Way. It wasn't the intellectual operation of the Unmoved Mover, nor any other sense. The fact that you say you "anticipated and addressed this objection" is another example of being inexcusably ignorant.
Here is the quote once again from the SCG: March 18, 2017 10:47 AM "[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."
That you accuse me of "Whack-a-mole trollistic blather" (whatever that is) indicates that you are now being dishonest in addition to being inexcusably ignorant.
bmiller: “No, you don't understand the fallacy even though I provided the definition here:August 13, 2017 4:57 PM. / You are dishonest (again) by asserting that I claimed that a quote from *any* authority is other than evidence to support my position.”
Ha. How is Aquinas stating that he doesn’t think that an unmoved thing causing a motionless thing to move is incoherent because, well, Aquinas doesn’t think so — how is that evidence? It is evidence that you don’t recognize or understand a fallacy, but other than that you’ve presented quite the head scratcher.
I’ll say it again. You tried to support your position by using a known fallacy — the argument from authority — because you mistakenly think that what someone else thinks about an argument’s validity is how one determines if an argument is a good or bad argument.
But the opinion of others (Aquinas, Plato, Aristotle, whoever) is NOT what determines if an argument is good or bad; the rules of good argument determine that. And the rules of good argument include soundness, which is not arbitrated by a person — it is arbitrated by a reality.
Your inclusion in this comment thread of a quote not once (but 3 times!), and your continued insistence that that quote from Aquinas, mentioning a conflict between Plato and Aristotle, and declaring that there was no conflict, and that his argument is therefore… what? sound? — is another clear indication that you fail to understand argument, fallacies, and reality.
But it’s worse than that; you will continue to fail to recognize things like the above AND learn from them, because your moral failings (narcissism, pride, dishonesty, and hypocrisy) prevent your mind from working the way that smart minds work. You are stuck, like a record with scratch, incapable of developing your acumen or understanding, a prisoner of your moral failings.
bmiller: “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.”
Okay, if the above think that First Way is a good argument, then they don’t understand what Aquinas’s First Way actually says, or the rules of good argument, or both. If they state that the First Way is a good argument, then that is all the evidence required to demonstrate that they lack expertise to determine either what the First Way plainly says, what the rules of argument are, or both.
It’s that simple. You are a fool, still apparently arguing for a known fallacy (argument from authority), rather than employing the rules of good argument, and evaluating the First Way based on those.
bmiller: “OK, I amend my accusation. You are not only a *science denier*, but a *dishonest science denier*. You'll be telling me dinosaurs lived with humans next!”
Hilarious coming from someone who believes that a virgin gave birth, that a snake talked, that a dead man came back to life after three days and flew up into the firmament, etc. Projection reveals the grotesque contortions of your mind.
bmiller: “This explains a lot. You apparently don't read books since they are written by people who have studied certain things and thereby have acquired an expertise and have become authorities. You let *reality* explain *reality* to you. You really must be stupid to have spent money on college just to have them assign you to read books by *authorities* to find out about *reality*. This is definitely going into my archives.”
Authorities speak on behalf of reality only to the extent that what they know is corroborated by reality. A physicist doesn’t know things because he states them; a physicist knows things because what he knows is verified objectively. You are so stupid you confuse this simple distinction regarding uncorroborated authority with authorities whose expertise is reliably and verifiably corroborated. And your are so vile that you try to misrepresent my straightforward position into something resembling your own misconceptions.
bmiller: “Translation: I don't know what the heck the entire discussion is about. This is like 10x over my head and the best I can do is avoid making myself look any more ridiculous than I already have. Maybe if invent phrases like "rules of good argument" and imaginary rules like "one doesn't make "arguments" for a bad argument; one criticizes a bad argument,"that I can equivocate on later that will buy me enough time till my obnoxiousness repels them enough to give up.
There are rules of argument. Agree, or disagree.
If you agree, then your comment above is contradicted by your agreement that there are rules of argument.
If you disagree, then you are not arguing here for anything, because there can be no arguing FOR something if there are no rules by which one could argue.
Your moral failings present you as you are — a hypocritical, dishonest, narcissistic, proud, and profoundly stupid person, whose stupidity is easy to recognize and presents in almost everything he writes.
I, too, have come to believe that your moral failings make you so stupid that you will forever fail to learn. You might someday become a better person, but changing your moral character is beyond my powers.
bmiller: “Second, I will be happy to explain the First Way to you the best as I understand it without animosity, but if you want me to explain it to you with animosity, then so be it.”
You could try. But your past comments present me with very little hope you can do so.
bmiller: “Third, if you have no interest in the topic and merely want to hang around and exchange insults, then bring it on. If the objective is sarcasm, game on!”
I am losing interest in observing you repeat your pathological thinking; my interest is in better understanding things so that I may be able to find ways to fix them. But at some point I will come to recognize that my conversation with you, pretending that we are on an equal level, could be seen as ugly and shabby on my part as the flaws I decry in your character, and the stupidity they engender.
I’ll say it again. You tried to support your position by using a known fallacy — the argument from authority — because you mistakenly think that what someone else thinks about an argument’s validity is how one determines if an argument is a good or bad argument.
You are not only inexcusably ignorant, but now demonstrating that you are plainly stupid as well as dishonest. I never made any claim "that what someone else thinks about an argument’s validity is how one determines if an argument is a good or bad argument."
Here is what I posted September 02, 2017 1:31 PM 1) The quote explains the distinction of the change of potency to act characteristic of existing material things to that of the intellect and will of the Unmoved Mover. It is once again irrelevant *who* makes the argument so it misses the point to focus on the author rather than the argument 2) It is hilarious to witness someone claiming that quoting the author of the First Way in the process of explaining the First Way is an invalid appeal to authority.
Your original complaint was that the quote was irrelevant. I pointed out that was relevant due to it being from the author of the First Way and that it specifically addressed the sense in which the First Way used the term "motion". There is no doubt about what the author meant. It is bizarre for you to insist this constitutes some sort of argument from authority on my part.
You are too clueless to actually interact with the content of the quote and tell me why you think it is a "bad argument". Instead you merely assert it is wrong. Then you claim that your opponent is not following "the rules of good argument".
You project not only your own moral failings on others but also your own fallacious reasoning.
You are certainly a *Science Denier*. You have been shown that science considers location a property of an object. It is clear you lack any scientific background so it may have been excusable that you didn't know that fact. But now you know it and deny it. So much for your dishonest claim that you base your view of reality on science.
You claimed that the only authority regarding *reality* is *reality*. September 01, 2017 4:45 PM The only authority regarding reality, and arguments that try to explain reality, is reality.
Here you acknowledge that you accept other authorities. September 04, 2017 9:18 AM You are so stupid you confuse this simple distinction regarding uncorroborated authority with authorities whose expertise is reliably and verifiably corroborated.
I think you are being dishonest. Again.
There are rules of argument. Agree, or disagree.
Yes, there are such rules. But you don't apparently don't know what they are since almost all of your *arguments* are mere assertions or fallacies of relevance when you aren't inventing your own rules.
I am losing interest in observing you repeat your pathological thinking;
It's called rational argumentation. That you consider rational argumentation "pathological thinking" tells me a lot.
my interest is in better understanding things so that I may be able to find ways to fix them.
It seems to me that you either try not to understand your opponents' positions, cannot understand them, or understand them and act like you don't. In any case, displaying obnoxious childish behavior won't fix anything unless it is your goal to diminish your credibility further. If that is even possible.
Observed reality demonstrates that the FW is correct. The science deniers will argue that things change/move today because things that no longer exist are actively doing all the work. The ghost of some ancient object is the puppet master currently moving the train down the track, causing it to stop at each station and causing it to resume toward the next station. The ghost of objects past are actively causing physical objects to type comments on computers today.
You won't find this "ghost theory" taught in any science class, nor will you find it in any peer reviewed article. There's a reason for that. The science deniers should take note of this.
Not only do they think ghosts cause trains to run, but entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some physically measurable force to your golf swing.
From https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html
July 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM Strawdusty: "The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount." Me: "If that is so, then please give me the physically quantified amount of force physics claims is being supplied by each of them during the motion of that particular amount.
Perhaps one could attribute some portion of the force to a particular heartbeat of the man since that is part of the activity of the existing form of the man. But the the previous deceased generations of male parents do not exist as material entities and so cannot affect material things. "Dead men tell no tales" I've heard.
Non existent things cannot cause change."
July 22, 2017 at 3:46 PM Me: ""But tell me the ratio of force each of your ancestors contribute to your golf swing?"" Strawdusty: "--Is fertilization exothermic or endothermic? I really don't know, what difference does it make relevant to how the First Way is erroneous on the modern science of motion and conservation of matter/energy?"
They're not just science deniers. They seem to be in sort of weird cult.
Criticisms that are founded upon an anti-scientific, anti-reality "ghost theory" are not valid criticisms. Because they are not valid criticisms they do no damage to the argument.
" entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some physically measurable force to your golf swing." --Liar. I never said the force was physically measurable. Every causal series is "accidental". A cause is instrumental to the effect only in the senses that it is part of a temporal causal series or that the the cause is simultaneous with the effect in the limit as t goes to zero.
A cause may be too small in force to be physically measurable.
--Liar. I never said the force was physically measurable. ...A cause may be too small in force to be physically measurable.
You said: "The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man "
So what measurement do you use for the force delivered by non-existent beings...*The Ghost Newton*? After all you claimed it was moved "some particular amount". Imaginary forces are not measurable. Real forces can be measured.
Sorry above should have been. You said: "The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
--Liar. I never said the force was physically measurable. ...A cause may be too small in force to be physically measurable.
You said: "The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man " --No statement that the force is physically measurable.
" So what measurement do you use for the force delivered by non-existent beings" --It is not measurable and I did not say it was but you said I said so which makes you a liar.
" Real forces can be measured." --Not necessarily.
" And BTW, you are projecting." --In the sense that I am projecting true words onto this blog regarding your lies, yes.
Let's see. There's no evidence of a causal force and no evidence of the ghost. Other than that, Dusty's explanation is the bestest scientific explanation ever.
Cal: "Authorities speak on behalf of reality only to the extent that what they know is corroborated by reality. A physicist doesn’t know things because he states them; a physicist knows things because what he knows is verified objectively."
Dusty fails to live up to this standard. As far as this subject is concerned Dusty doesn't speak on behalf of reality nor does he speak about things that are verified objectively.
"The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man --No statement that the force is physically measurable.
More dishonesty. You ignored that I pointed out you claimed it was moving "some particular amount".
And also didn't quote my correction of September 05, 2017 7:39 PM. Where I completed what you had posted. "The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
You asserted that a deceased relavitive is moving a stick a "particular amount". In the English language a "particular amount" refers to a quanitity (in this case of force) that is distinguishable from other quantities (of force). If a quantity of force is not measurable, then it is not distiguishable from no force at all.
You were asked multiple times since July 19th what "particular amount" of force deceased relatives contribute to living men moving sticks. "If that is so, then please give me the physically quantified amount of force physics claims is being supplied by each of them during the motion of that particular amount.
Never once did you claim it was not "physically measurable" when you were asked directly multiple times. Of course is a hilarious defense now. Super double-secret-probation undetectable forces from beyond the grave make sticks move.
And yes, you are projecting again by accusing me of being dishonest. Along with dodging questions and doubling down on stupid statements.
But go on. This it's really entertaining to hear your stories from the *Ghost Force Cult*.
Me: “I’ll say it again. You tried to support your position by using a known fallacy — the argument from authority — because you mistakenly think that what someone else thinks about an argument’s validity is how one determines if an argument is a good or bad argument.” bmiller: “You are not only inexcusably ignorant, but now demonstrating that you are plainly stupid as well as dishonest.”
Um, at this point it seems like you don’t even understand what the words above mean.
bmiller: “I never made any claim "that what someone else thinks about an argument’s validity is how one determines if an argument is a good or bad argument.””
Ha. Yes you did, you stupid liar. This is you:
bmiller: ““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.”
That’s you, insinuating still that the opinions of others above (not just in the examples I mentioned earlier) are to be privileged regarding an argument about reality.
So, on the one hand you cry about being misrepresented (oh, booh hoo, I didn’t try and say that other’s opinions, ahem, expertise!, should be privileged when evaluating an argument about reality), and on the other hand, you represent that others opinions, ahem, expertise! about an argument are why the First Way is somehow a good argument.
You are just the saddest kind of moral character — a hypocritical, dishonest, narcissist, whose pride instigates this unending litany of flailing attempts at demonstrating that you are somehow not really as pathetic as you persistently appear. And that is why you appear not just shabby, but so unrelently stupid.
bmiller: “Here is what I posted September 02, 2017 1:31 PM / 1) The quote explains the distinction of the change of potency to act characteristic of existing material things to that of the intellect and will of the Unmoved Mover. It is once again irrelevant *who* makes the argument so it misses the point to focus on the author rather than the argument”
Ha. Word salad. I can’t believe anyone would want to dredge up a train wreck of “thinking” like that. All you’ve done is reveal how the stupid are fooled by deepities, revealing that to stunted minds like yours the complex but true is as bewildering as gibberish (like the above) that pertains to nothing. You reveal yourself, and the portrait does not flatter.
bmiller: “2) It is hilarious to witness someone claiming that quoting the author of the First Way in the process of explaining the First Way is an invalid appeal to authority”
Apparently you think that quoting a proponent of an argument makes that argument somehow valid. Since you’ve made NO meaningful attempt to refute the criticism of the First Way’s obvious failings, but instead lie, bluster, misrepresent, and pretend that confused thinking by those you identify as “experts” is enough, you’ve done little more than demonstrate that moral failings make one stupid, and they are intractable. Thus, your moral failings make you appear so intractably stupid.
bmiller: “Your original complaint was that the quote was irrelevant.”
True. I ignored it because the quote does NOTHING to refute the criticism that the First Way remains apparently unsound regarding motion. That is what it means to be irrelevant.
bmiller: “I pointed out that was relevant due to it being from the author of the First Way and that it specifically addressed the sense in which the First Way used the term "motion”.”
Which is another way of saying that you think that if the First Way uses the term motion in a way that’s unsound then that should somehow make the First Way a good argument. You are so stupid you don’t realize you’re testifying against the silly idea that you are not stupid.
bmiller: “There is no doubt about what the author meant. It is bizarre for you to insist this constitutes some sort of argument from authority on my part.”
This bizarre conclusion caps off beautifully the extent to which your moral failings (hypocrisy, dishonesty, narcissism, and pride) make you not just so unrelentingly stupid, but also so unrelentingly predictable.
bmiller: “I never made any claim "that what someone else thinks about an argument’s validity is how one determines if an argument is a good or bad argument.””
Ha. Yes you did, you stupid liar. This is you:
bmiller: ““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.”
That’s you, insinuating still that the opinions of others above (not just in the examples I mentioned earlier) are to be privileged regarding an argument about reality.
You plucked the second quote of mine from the context regarding the subject of who was more qualified to judge the proper intrepretation of what the premises and conclusion the First Way were, not the validity of the argument itself. Strawdusty or Aquinas et al.
The second quote of mine that you selected was with respect to the content of a specific irrelevant argument that Strawdusty put forward. I pointed out that Strawdusty's argument was irrelevant because the sense of motion used in the First Way had already been defined by the author of the First Way in the SCG and in fact, his specific example had been addressed. Thus proving that Strawdusty's argument was irrelvant.
So one disagreement was regarding who was more qualified to explain how to interpret the argument. The other disagreement was about the validity of the argument itself. That you confound these 2 separate disagreements indicates your low reading comprehension.
" And that is why you appear not just shabby, but so unrelently stupid. And this statement your continued projection.
Perhaps this is all part of the initiation ritual they make you go through to become a member of the Science Denying *Ghost Force Cult*.
bmiller: “Here is what I posted September 02, 2017 1:31 PM / 1) The quote explains the distinction of the change of potency to act characteristic of existing material things to that of the intellect and will of the Unmoved Mover. It is once again irrelevant *who* makes the argument so it misses the point to focus on the author rather than the argument”
Ha. Word salad....gibberish (like the above) that pertains to nothing.
1) You miss the point that this quote was in response to the charge I was making an argument from authority. I explained how supplying a counter argument was not an argument from authority regardless of who makes it. 2) You merely assert that counter argument is wrong. You're apparently not equipped to rebut it.
bmiller: “2) It is hilarious to witness someone claiming that quoting the author of the First Way in the process of explaining the First Way is an invalid appeal to authority”
Apparently you think that quoting a proponent of an argument makes that argument somehow valid. ...
No. You are inexcusably ignorant and dishonest. You've been supplied with the definition of the *ad verecundiam fallacy* on August 13, 2017 4:57 PM. There is no excuse for you to continue to make this claim.
bmiller: “Your original complaint was that the quote was irrelevant.”
True. I ignored it because the quote does NOTHING to refute the criticism that the First Way remains apparently unsound regarding motion. That is what it means to be irrelevant.
Well well. You claimed you read all of the posts I listed and now you admit that you ignored this one. More proof of your projection of dishonesty on me. But your claim that the quote is irrelevant is false. You prove you don't know what an irrelevant argument is even though given the definition of Ignoratio elenchi on September 01, 2017 1:48 PM. Another example of inexcusable ignorance. Is it due to dishonesty or intellectual incapacity?
bmiller: “I pointed out that was relevant due to it being from the author of the First Way and that it specifically addressed the sense in which the First Way used the term "motion”.”
Which is another way of saying that you think that if the First Way uses the term motion in a way that’s unsound then that should somehow make the First Way a good argument. You are so stupid you don’t realize you’re testifying against the silly idea that you are not stupid.
What you just posted there is utter gibberish. Sober up and try again.
This bizarre conclusion caps off beautifully the extent to which your moral failings (hypocrisy, dishonesty, narcissism, and pride) make you not just so unrelentingly stupid, but also so unrelentingly predictable.
Another good example of your projection.
But tell me Little Cal. How do deceased relatives provide you with a particular amount of force to hit golf balls? No one can tell me.
SP --No statement that the force is physically measurable.
" More dishonesty. You ignored that I pointed out you claimed it was moving "some particular amount"." --I said a particular amount, not a measurable amount. You said I said a measurable amount when I did not. That makes you a liar.
bmiller: “Your original complaint was that the quote was irrelevant.” Me: "True. I ignored it because the quote does NOTHING to refute the criticism that the First Way remains apparently unsound regarding motion. That is what it means to be irrelevant." bmiller: "Well well. You claimed you read all of the posts I listed and now you admit that you ignored this one. More proof of your projection of dishonesty on me."
???????
It does remain interesting to me how reliably my theory that your dishonesty makes you stupider is verified. So stupid that you apparently don't know what the very common word "ignore means.
Ignore : to refuse to take notice of : to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungrounded
You are apparently so stupid (made stupider by your dishonesty and narcissism) that you think that "ignore" means "miss" or "not read." Not knowing the meaning of a common word is the best evidence yet of how moral failings can make one remarkably stupid -- far stupider than one should be based on bare mental acuity alone.
Hence, bmiller's dishonesty and narcissism make him stupider.
And, of course, more vile.
And his pride will prevent him from accepting the objective demonstration and explanation of how his moral failings make him stupider (as they have above), and he will try to retort in kind rather than modify his behavior (because he is a narcissist), demonstrating that poor moral character not only makes one vile, but also traps minds in a wall of stupidity that they cannot escape.
--I said a particular amount, not a measurable amount. You said I said a measurable amount when I did not. That makes you a liar.
You've just accused me of misquoting you. That is false. I quoted you word for word. You have never claimed that this "particular amount" was "not a measurable amount" for over a month until your recent dissembling.
In fact you told us that you considered that this force could be found in "fertilization".
Me: ""But tell me the ratio of force each of your ancestors contribute to your golf swing?"" Strawdusty: "--Is fertilization exothermic or endothermic?
@Stardusty, I am beginning to have some misgivings about our engagement here, in that it does occur to me that we are dealing with genuine pathology, and not just your garden variety moral turpitude and ignorance.
The "discussion" here is starting to remind me of the link below, where a misguided desire to remedy psychosis with a kind of confrontational rationality was revealed to be both doomed and misguided.
>> "You said I said a measurable amount when I did not. That makes you a liar."
You said a deceased person can cause motion. That makes you delusional. I think bmiller is in better shape as he can correct his errors. You need professional help.
You said a deceased person can cause motion. That makes you delusional.
Not only that, but he apparently doesn't even respect his deceased male ancestors. He claims they all apply a particular amount of force to his golf swing, but they are so puny that their combined force isn't even measurable.
If I was making stuff up, I'd brag about how powerful my deceased male ancestors were, not how puny.
In any event, Strawdusty got caught up in the logical absurdity of his position, so as you note, instead of making a course correction, he doubled down now with the claim that the "particular amount" of force deceased ancestors supply is too small to be measurable after more than a month of me repeatedly asking for the "particular amount".
The posts where I orginally asked him for this were on Feser's blog, but I included them in my list of unanswered refutations of their irrelevant "arguments". Posted numerous times on this thread:
July 20, 2017 at 9:26 PM On the list July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM On the list July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM On the list
So the *I really meant a teeny tiny force too small to notice* excuse is way more lame than *the dog ate my homework* excuse. But I have to admit, it's way more fun to ridicule.☺
Not knowing the meaning of a common word is the best evidence yet of how moral failings can make one remarkably stupid -- far stupider than one should be based on bare mental acuity alone.
Oh. Like the word irrelevant? More Little Cal projection.
Ignore : to refuse to take notice of
I ignore books on reincarnation. I don't read them. You're dishonest if you claim that you read things you've admitted that you ignore. Hence your need to project.
You admitted that you hadn't read even the first one until this post: Still, I'll probably get around to looking at your first reply, then pointing out the problems with it in some detail, August 11, 2017 6:12 AM
I have no reason to believe you've read the rest of them now that you've admitted you willfully ignore posts. True. I ignored it because the quote does NOTHING to refute the criticism that the First Way remains apparently unsound regarding motion. September 06, 2017 6:12 PM
Here's an anecdote. It seems the students I knew that studied psychology exhibited an extraordinary interest in obsessively psychologically analyzing everyone around them to the point of annoying everyone. When in fact, they were the most psychologically unstable of all my acquaintances. Projection.
" You have never claimed that this "particular amount" was "not a measurable amount" --I never said it was, you said I said it was, that makes you a liar.
" You have never claimed that this "particular amount" was "not a measurable amount" --I never said it was, you said I said it was, that makes you a liar.
This reply is incoherent as often happens when people are dissembling. I assume that your first phrase "I never said it was" was supposed to address a claim such as *you said it was measurable*. That was not in my statement.
The point is that for almost 7 weeks your story had been consistent. Then suddenly you changed the story by making a new claim that this ghostly force is not physically measurable on September 5th. Changing the details of a story over time is an indication of dissembling.
You also again accuse me of misquoting you, when in fact I quoted you word for word. I pointed this out previously, so now it's conclusive that you are projecting.
But of course all of this projection is a red herring anyway, meant to change the subject from how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
" @Stardusty, I am beginning to have some misgivings about our engagement here, in that it does occur to me that we are dealing with genuine pathology, and not just your garden variety moral turpitude and ignorance." --Possible. The level of trollishness is so high with bmiller in particular that some sort of diagnosed mental illness is a consideration.
On another thread Joe Hinman shared with us that he has severe medical issues, is bedridden, and has dislexia. His responses are also highly variable, sometimes lucid and well written, other times grumpy, scattered, and disjointed. So I can imagine him having relatively good days and bad days which might be reflected in his writing.
The only good days I have noticed for bmiller and SteveK are when they feel they are in education mode. When they feel they are taking on the role of teacher it seems they are able to pull it together for a few days and actually write some thoughtful and cogent posts.
" The "discussion" here is starting to remind me of the link below, where a misguided desire to remedy psychosis with a kind of confrontational rationality was revealed to be both doomed and misguided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Christs_of_Ypsilanti" --Apparently the three christs never changed, but there was a woman in a similar condition that was helped by the controversial technique. So one never knows how useless or helpful it is to put words of reason out on a blog.
Me: “Not knowing the meaning of a common word is the best evidence yet of how moral failings can make one remarkably stupid -- far stupider than one should be based on bare mental acuity alone.” bmiller: “Oh. Like the word irrelevant?”
Yes, exactly; your persistent inability to comprehend words as they are commonly understood, instead exalting a twisted sense that conforms with your narcissism and pride, is what makes you appear even stupider. Yes, that is what I mean.
Me: “Ignore : to refuse to take notice of bmiller: “I ignore books on reincarnation. I don't read them. You're dishonest if you claim that you read things you've admitted that you ignore. Hence your need to project.”
False. It’s entirely honest (and supremely common) for people to ignore things they read. That you would pretend otherwise is testament to how stupid your moral failings (pride and dishonesty) make you appear here.
For instance, here’s common use of the word ignore (in the headline) which is not only a common use of the term but parallels what I mean when I say I have ignoree your irrelevant and stupid comments:
The fact that I respond to some of your comments, and not all, does not mean that I haven’t read a prior comment. Only a real narcissist would imagine that the only reason someone ignores their comment is because they haven’t read it. Your imagining that it should be otherwise is another case of how your narcissism makes you appear even stupider.
bmiller: “You admitted that you hadn't read even the first one until this post: [me] ‘Still, I'll probably get around to looking at your first reply, then pointing out the problems with it in some detail,’ August 11, 2017 6:12 AM”
Liar -- I did no such thing. My reply above indicates that I would review (look at) your first comment, this time with an eye to how you had tried to portray it. This is common use of common English.
For instance, if a friend is selling a car and asks if I want to buy it, and I say, "I will come look at it," it doesn’t mean that I have NEVER seen my friend's car before; it means that I will look at it in a different way than I have looked at it before.
Your pride and dishonesty prevent you from understanding words and expressions as they are commonly used, and this makes you (relentlessly) stupider.
bmiller: “I have no reason to believe you've read the rest of them now that you've admitted you willfully ignore posts.”
Liar. I have NOT said that I willfully ignore posts.
Your lie above is yet another example of how your moral failings prevent you from understanding even basic facts. As explained, "Ignore" does not necessarily mean "not read." See my reference above, and try to become more familiar with common usage of common words. But more importantly, consider not being a relentlessly vile person.
bmiller: “Here's an anecdote. It seems the students I knew that studied psychology exhibited an extraordinary interest in obsessively psychologically analyzing everyone around them to the point of annoying everyone. When in fact, they were the most psychologically unstable of all my acquaintances. Projection.”
Cool story, bro.
I have lots of friends who’s studied psychology. I don’t recall any of them suggesting that I would benefit from psychological analysis. Maybe you should consider the fact that those who know you in person have noticed you might benefit from psychological analysis as a sign that you might benefit from psychological analysis.
Delusional Dusty: "The only good days I have noticed for bmiller and SteveK are when they feel they are in education mode."
If only you'd take the education and apply it. Since you have been recently educated on the fact that (a) deceased people cannot move objects and (b) non-existing objects cannot cause change, will you give up your false beliefs?
Your criticisms rest on these false beliefs, which means your criticisms of the FW are invalid.
" The point is that for almost 7 weeks your story had been consistent. " --The point is you lied about my use of the word "measurable".
More projection and attempted distraction regarding your dissembling. I quoted you word for word. I never claimed you said anything other than what you said. You however changed your story.
But to the point. "But of course all of this projection is a red herring anyway, meant to change the subject from how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Yes, exactly; your persistent inability to comprehend words as they are commonly understood, instead exalting a twisted sense that conforms with your narcissism and pride, is what makes you appear even stupider. Yes, that is what I mean.
More projection. You routinely claim arguments that are relevant to the topic are irrelevant.
False. It’s entirely honest (and supremely common) for people to ignore things they read. That you would pretend otherwise is testament to how stupid your moral failings (pride and dishonesty) make you appear here.
Are you telling me that you read everything that you choose to ignore? How ever do you get anything done?
Only a real narcissist would imagine that the only reason someone ignores their comment is because they haven’t read it.
I don't believe you read the comments you claimed to have read because you exhibit no familiarity with them. The fact that you mentioned you ignored them gives me further confirmation of that belief. I'm just following where the facts lead me.
If you had read the comments and were familiar with them and further if you agree with Strawdusty's arguments, then you should be able to tell us "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
bmiller: “You admitted that you hadn't read even the first one until this post: [me] ‘Still, I'll probably get around to looking at your first reply, then pointing out the problems with it in some detail,’ August 11, 2017 6:12 AM”
Liar -- I did no such thing. My reply above indicates that I would review (look at) your first comment, this time with an eye to how you had tried to portray it. This is common use of common English.
I can only respond to what you post. You have not demonstrated that you have read the comments before, and then August 11 for the first time you mentioned that you would "probably get around to looking at your first reply". Don't blame me for concluding that you haven't read the comments when you'd offered no response and then mention you'd look at the first reply August 11.
Liar. I have NOT said that I willfully ignore posts.
Then did someone *force* you to ignore the posts against your will? Projector.
Your lie above is yet another example of how your moral failings prevent you from understanding even basic facts. As explained, "Ignore" does not necessarily mean "not read."
You accused me of lying in the same comment that you allow that ignore *can* indeed mean "not read". Your own moral failings have overridden your (perhaps minimal) critical thinking skills. More projection.
I have lots of friends who’s studied psychology. I don’t recall any of them suggesting that I would benefit from psychological analysis.
What a surprize that you would miss the point again. You are the one I am referring to as having " an extraordinary interest in obsessively psychologically analyzing everyone around them to the point of annoying everyone" instead of debating the actual topic.
Which is most recently the claim that teeny tiny (undetectable) forces from deceased lineages move things and thus defeat the First Way.
Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
bmiller: "Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks. Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
The above is why I ignore so many of your comments.
You lie. (I haven't said that "undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks" -- this is some bizarre invention of yours, I imagine, although I don't care enough to look up the origin of the phrase, especially since it seems like something you and steveK regularly write.)
And seeing as how I haven't said the above, it appears irrelevant to your supposed defense of the First Way as offered here by Stardusty and myself.
Deluded Dusty said this, Cal. Not using those exact words. Stop lying Cal.
Since we're on the subject of Dusty. The existence of moving train wheels confirms that he is wrong about the existence of an essentially ordered causal series.
They exist. It's been verified. Dusty is dead wrong, thus his criticism is worthless.
What's it's like to have a crush on a deluded fool?
" I quoted you word for word. I never claimed you said anything other than what you said. " --Liar, you said I said "physically measurable".
You keep making this claim. I never quoted you as saying that. I quoted you word for word. Show me your original quote and then show my post where I quoted you as saying "physically measurable". It should be easy to show this since all of our posts are right here.
It is apparent however that you are dissembling by changing your story after 7 weeks.
"But of course all of this projection is a red herring anyway, meant to change the subject from how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
You claimed to have refuted the First Way and part of that refutation depends on the force of non-existent things. This is your chance. Tell us how you know that long ago deceased relatives provide some undetectable force that moves sticks. Then explain how these undetectable forces defeat the First Way.
Me: If you had read the comments and were familiar with them and further if you agree with Strawdusty's arguments, then you should be able to tell us "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
You dodged this last time.
Little Cal:"You lie. (I haven't said that "undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks" -- this is some bizarre invention of yours, I imagine, although I don't care enough to look up the origin of the phrase, especially since it seems like something you and steveK regularly write.)"
More confirmation of my belief that you didn't read the comments while claiming you did.
So far, I consider it a justified belief that you didn't actually read the comments. 1) You claim to have read the comments but appear to be unfamiliar with the content of any comments. You just demonstrated this here. 2) You specifically refused to read the 4 posts I indicated answered your challenge. If you had read them then you would have known what they said. So further confirmation that you didn't read them. 3) You claimed to have "have demonstrated that your claims of having refuted the criticisms showing why the First Way is a bad argument in those comments are completely vacuous."August 28, 2017 7:27 AM 4) Yet but you claimed to have ignored them. How could one claim to have demonstrated "those comments are completely vacuous." if one ignored them? 5) You regularly and repeatedly claim that your opponents are lying when there is no basis for you to reach that conclusion. A tell for projection. 6) The odd claim that "It’s entirely honest (and supremely common) for people to ignore things they read." appears to be a dissembling answer. Further confirmed by the non-response to my question "Are you telling me that you read everything that you choose to ignore? How ever do you get anything done?"
I could go on, but I don't want to. I'd rather hear you defend your claim of August 04, 2017 6:00 AM that this list of your's was not addressed. The fact of the matter is that the list I provided was just a roundup of responses that actually demonstrated the fallacies of your list.
Little Cal has never actually tried to argue against the First Way choosing instead to only fling insults and feeble attempts at character assassination. Seems to be the only thing he can do.
At least Strawdusty tried to make an actual argument however funny. Now he has nothing left other than "dog ate my homework" excuses and has resorted to Little Cal "reasoning". I used to call him a crank, but now I realize that was too generous.
@bmiller Cal let's Dusty argue and then he attaches himself to the argument because he admires Dusty's bulging brain. We all know that Cal isn't smart enough to formulate these arguments by himself. The problem is that Cal didn't realize until it was too late that he hitched his wagon to a delusional fool. Dusty's comments demonstrate that fact. I'm sure Cal is emotionally distraught
"You claimed to have refuted the First Way and part of that refutation depends on the force of non-existent things. This is your chance. Tell us how you know that long ago deceased relatives provide some undetectable force that moves sticks. Then explain how these undetectable forces defeat the First Way."
Stevek: "Deluded Dusty said this, Cal. Not using those exact words."
That you think the above is a testament to how stupid you are. You can't quote Stardusty saying what you represent he said, and you blame this not on your own stupidity, supplanted by your deep moral failings, but on the person who did not do what you claimed he has. You are vile, and that makes you even stupider than you already are.
Stevek: "Stop lying Cal."
I am not lying, nor has anyone shown how it is that I have supposedly lied in my comments here. If you disagree, reference me lying here. Use my actual words, not your stupid misunderstanding of them, and show how it is that my words are a lie.
You, on the other hand, are a known liar. From earlier:
Stardusty: "Yes, ask a mechanical engineer to model it for you and you can get a fairly close answer" Stevek: "I'm a mechanical engineer."
But you are not a mechanical engineer. You are a known liar in that your lie is both obvious to those of us who know basic science (you obviously do not, which is a prerequisite to earning a degree in Mechanical Engineering), but more particularly and ominously YOU also actually know as well that you aren't a mechanical engineer.
Yes, you know this -- you actually know that you have not earned a degree in Mechanical Engineering (which is what people mean when they say, "I'm a mechanical engineer.") So, you accuse others of being what you know yourself to be.
You are vile.
So reconcile the above, liar, with what you write here -- that you falsely accuse others of lying, when all this time you KNOW what educated people can easily see for themselves --that you yourself are the liar.
bmiller: "@Strawdusty, What is this post supposed to mean?"
Hey, @bmiller -- I'll help you out, bro. Here's how it worked. First, you wrote this:
bmiller: "Not only do [Stardusty and I] think ghosts cause trains to run, but entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
Do you deny that in the above you have represented what Stardusty and I have argued for?
Or would you like to weasel out by saying that what you wrote was wrong, and irrelevant?
Take your pick.
If you choose the first, you have admitted that you think you correctly represented what Stardusty [and I] have claimed here.
And then you go on to lie again, by saying:
bmiller: "I quoted you word for word. I never claimed you said anything other than what you said."
Nope. Above, you claim to represent what Stardusty and I have said, which is demonstrably false, and in so doing you definitely did NOT quote either of us "word for word" -- as is so often the case, you wriote what you misunderstand, and then attribute that misunderstanding to us.
You are stupid, and you are then dishonest about your stupidity. At this point you pose a chicken and egg problem, and that's about it.
Cal: "You can't quote Stardusty saying what you represent he said"
Proof that I was correct about Cal being emotionally distraught. Cal defends his man like a battered wife. She cannot get herself to see the bruises for what they are.
As much as it breaks your heart, Cal, Dusty's delusional comments are there. He's not denying it because he cannot. Like bruises, everyone can see them.
I'm sorry that you've been battered and betrayed. Time will heal your wounded heart.
Do you deny that in the above you have represented what Stardusty and I have argued for?
So you now admit that you too now hold that long ago deceased male relatives move sticks a "particular amount" and his recent dissembling that "particular amount"=undetectable.
But you just claimed you didn't know anything about this concept: You lie. (I haven't said that "undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks" -- this is some bizarre invention of yours, I imagine, although I don't care enough to look up the origin of the phrase, especially since it seems like something you and steveK regularly write.)
Now, regarding the quote of mine you selected. You notice that I did not claim to be quoting anyone. I was entirely justified in my use of the words "PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE" wrt to what Strawdusty posted. I specifically asked him for the quantity of this made up force and he offered no correction or qualification was offered to that phrase for 7 weeks.
"If that is so, then please give me the physically quantified amount of force physics claims is being supplied by each of them during the motion of that particular amount. ".
Now of course he is dissembling, just like you.
Nope. Above, you claim to represent what Stardusty and I have said, which is demonstrably false, and in so doing you definitely did NOT quote either of us "word for word" -- as is so often the case, you wriote what you misunderstand, and then attribute that misunderstanding to us.
I did not misquote anyone. If you claim I did, then show the original quote and then where you claimed I cited it and changed the words. You are now telling a lie.
But now that you've changed your story and tell us you agree with Strawdusty's teeny tiny ghostly forces: "Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks."
Looks like the Science Deniers have given up any semblance of trying to refute the First Way.
It is entertaining to watch the increasingly foolish explanations they come up with as their arguments are examined logically. But at the same time, I have to feel sorry for someone to go to such foolish lengths rather than just admitting they were wrong and move on.
bmiller; "So you now admit that you too now hold that long ago deceased male relatives move sticks a "particular amount" and his recent dissembling that "particular amount"=undetectable."
Nope. Learn to read. (Btw, "particular amount" does not necessarily mean "undetectable" -- this should go without saying, but you appear so stupid about everything obvious that I might as well bring that to your attention as well.)
Here's what I wrote:
Me: "Do you deny that in the above YOU have REPRESENTED what Stardusty and I have argued for?"
YOUR REPRESENTATION of what we have said for DOES NOT EQUAL what we have actually said -- it means that you had tried to summarize what we had argued for, even though your summary was incorrect. You represented what we had said, but your summary is not an accurate representation.
You wrote:
bmiller: ""Not only do [Stardusty and I] think ghosts cause trains to run, but entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
That's you, (falsely) representing that Stardusty and I have somewhere argued that, "entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
But we haven't ever said that. When called out for misrepresenting what we had been saying, and insisting that you were somehow still correct, you now try to weasel away by saying you didn't directly quote us above, even though you were clearly trying to represent what we were saying. But not even that dodge can extricate you from your dishonesty.
Do you deny that in the first quote above that you were trying to actually represent what Stardusty and I have argued for?
Or would you like to weasel out by saying that what you wrote was wrong, and irrelevant?
It has to be one or the other. It can't be none, or both.
bmiller: "Now of course he is dissembling, just like you."
Ignoring you and your mostly irrelevant comments is not dissembling. Only someone in the throes of narcissism would consider it some kind of dishonesty to not bother responding to his twaddle.
bmiller: "But now that you've changed your story and tell us you agree with Strawdusty's teeny tiny ghostly forces: "Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks." "
You lie. You are a liar.
Hey, here's a thought? Why don't you and stevek go do some mekanical enjuneerin' together! You two must be the best at it!
stevek: "Nope. Your words and Dusty's words represent what you said. Those words demonstrate that Dusty thinks that deceased bodies cause motion. Prove me wrong."
Okay. Stardusty and I have never said, "deceased bodies cause motion."
stevek: "Nope. Your words and Dusty's words represent what you said. Those words demonstrate that Dusty thinks that deceased bodies cause motion. Prove me wrong."
" Okay. Stardusty and I have never said, "deceased bodies cause motion." That was easy."
" Professor May ... returns to the method of ascribing to me views I neither hold nor expressed and then rebutting them" -- Henry Kissinger
In the rarefied realm of international diplomacy and military conflict one can comprehend rational motivations for this sort of deceit.
Why bmiller and SteveK would go to the lengths they do to falsely ascribe to you and I views we did not express and do not hold is a bizarre mystery indeed.
Now Dusty is saying the deceased do not cause motion.
Dusty is saying if the father and grandfather are deceased they are not causing motion.
Dusty is saying that his comments about the father and grandfather have nothing to do with the FW argument because deceased people do not cause motion.
Dusty is saying he still doesn't understand the FW argument because he thought the father and grandfather were relevant to the FW.
stevek: "Dusty is saying he still doesn't understand the FW argument because he thought the refinery was relevant to the FW and motion of train wheels"
Statement like these merely demonstrate that you are stupid.
stevek: "I'm a mechanical engineer."
Just as statements like these demonstrate that you are a liar.
Which answers a question of who would defend the First Way as being a good argument: a stupid liar.
In the prolonged absence of any disciplined, meaningful response to the criticism of the First Way from the apologists here, characterizations of their behavior and explanations for their stupidity are apparently all that remain concerning this "discussion" of the First Way.
Why bmiller and SteveK would go to the lengths they do to falsely ascribe to you and I views we did not express and do not hold is a bizarre mystery indeed.
Oh, you mean quoting you, asking you for clarification and then quoting your response. That was no trouble at all.
The fact that 7 weeks later the following exchange, you dissembled and now say you meant "particular amount" to mean "too small in force to be physically measurable", does not mean I failed to process that bit of nonsense when you posted it.
Once again the exchange:
Strawdusty: "The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount." Me: "If that is so, then please give me the physically quantified amount of force physics claims is being supplied by each of them during the motion of that particular amount.
Perhaps one could attribute some portion of the force to a particular heartbeat of the man since that is part of the activity of the existing form of the man. But the the previous deceased generations of male parents do not exist as material entities and so cannot affect material things. "Dead men tell no tales" I've heard.
Non existent things cannot cause change."
July 22, 2017 at 3:46 PM Me: ""But tell me the ratio of force each of your ancestors contribute to your golf swing?"" Strawdusty: "--Is fertilization exothermic or endothermic? I really don't know, what difference does it make relevant to how the First Way is erroneous on the modern science of motion and conservation of matter/energy?"
September 05, 2017 12:10 PM A cause may be too small in force to be physically measurable.
My new question regarding your new claim: "But of course all of this projection is a red herring anyway, meant to change the subject from how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
I keep asking but no one seems to be able to answer. Now maybe you still think I misunderstand your claim, so let me tell you why I chose the words I did: 1) Generally when people talk about things being moved by deceased persons the are referring to ghosts. 2) You claimed these deceased people physically contributed to moving a stick a particular amount 3) I've never heard anyone use the term "particular amount" to mean "too small in force to be physically measurable", but leaving that aside, if you consider it a small force, it is a teeny tiny force. 4) Perhaps you would quibble with my term undetectable, but I chose that word as being more succinct than the phrase "too small in force to be physically measurable". Use the full phrase in your explanation if you want to.
If you wish people to ascribe to views that you truly express and hold. Then answer the question.
bmiller; "So you now admit that you too now hold that long ago deceased male relatives move sticks a "particular amount" and his recent dissembling that "particular amount"=undetectable."
Nope. Learn to read.
You just wrote that you and Strawdusty were arguing for the same thing, now you deny it. Make up your mind.
Btw, "particular amount" does not necessarily mean "undetectable" You're right. To most English speakers it means a specific quantity that can be distinguished from other quantities and from no quantity at all. Thank you for supporting me against Strawdusty's incoherent dissembling.
@Little Cal, Do you deny that in the above you have represented what Stardusty and I have argued for?
Of course not as I mentioned in my post September 09, 2017 9:44 AM. Did you read the post? Did you read it and ignore it? Or did you just ignore it? They all seem to mean the same thing to you.
You accused me of misquoting someone. I did not misquote anyone.
This was you responsed as the instance where I *misquoted* someone. bmiller: ""Not only do [Stardusty and I] think ghosts cause trains to run, but entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
That's you, (falsely) representing that Stardusty and I have somewhere argued that, "entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
But we haven't ever said that.
I was not quoting anyone in that snippet yet you imply I did with your claim "But we haven't ever said that.". Where in that quote of mine do you find that I said "Strawdusty said...", used quote marks, used italics or bold as I normally do when I'm directly quoting someone. You claim to be educated. I am now beginning to doubt that.
bmiller: "Now of course he is dissembling, just like you."
Ignoring you and your mostly irrelevant comments is not dissembling.
You claim to ignore my posts, but claim to have read them. Indeed you claim to have read and understood them enough to have demonstrated the claims are completely vacuous. But if you ignore posts, how can you claim to know what is in them? And if you actually claim to have demonstrated the claims are vacuous, then how can you claim you ignored them?
To refresh your memory I posted these relevant points September 08, 2017 7:48 PM : "1) You claim to have read the comments but appear to be unfamiliar with the content of any comments. You just demonstrated this here. 2) You specifically refused to read the 4 posts I indicated answered your challenge. If you had read them then you would have known what they said. So further confirmation that you didn't read them. 3) You claimed to have "have demonstrated that your claims of having refuted the criticisms showing why the First Way is a bad argument in those comments are completely vacuous."August 28, 2017 7:27 AM 4) Yet but you claimed to have ignored them. How could one claim to have demonstrated "those comments are completely vacuous." if one ignored them? 6) The odd claim that "It’s entirely honest (and supremely common) for people to ignore things they read." appears to be a dissembling answer. Further confirmed by the non-response to my question "Are you telling me that you read everything that you choose to ignore? How ever do you get anything done?"
*Appeal to Anderson Cooper*. Is that a new fallacy?
Sorry, post of September 10, 2017 6:34 PM Said: "This was you responsed as the instance where I *misquoted* someone." Should have said: This was how you responded to the instance where I *misquoted* someone.*
"Now, since you claim that you and Strawdusty hold the same view would you like to defend your claim that your deceased relatives move sticks?"
Cal and Dusty will claim he doesn't believe deceased relatives move sticks. They are stupid - very stupid - but probably not that stupid, although I could be wrong about that.
They will claim that ALIVE relatives (at the time) contributed to moving the sticks today. It's an equally indefensible belief because there is NO evidence for it. There's no SCIENTIFIC evidence for it and no OBSERVED evidence for it. REALITY doesn't reveal this to anyone.
They both imagine this is how reality works because they are deluded naturalists, not sane realists. Conservation of energy is Dusty's magic pixy dust. It answers every question. Sprinkle liberally and questions disappear - EXCEPT the question of WHAT caused the conversion to start.
a) WHAT caused you to get out of bed this morning? The big bang, of course. Duh! b) WHAT caused you to swing the golf club today? Your relatives (now dead), the big bang (now over), what you had for breakfast (now digested), the sun (now set) - basically everything throughout history contributed to putting you in motion.
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."
It would be hillarious if it wasn't so tragic.
Dusty will ramble on with tall tales, and Cal will gaze lovingly in his direction - but no evidence will ever be presented. None. Zip. Zero. All we get is regurgitated talking points of naturalistic claptrap consistent with "the universe made me do it"
bmiller: “You just wrote that you and Strawdusty were arguing for the same thing, now you deny it. Make up your mind.”
We are arguing for the same thing. Evidently, you don’t understand what that is. Hence your confused comments.
me: “Btw, "particular amount" does not necessarily mean "undetectable" bmiller: “You're right. To most English speakers it means a specific quantity that can be distinguished from other quantities and from no quantity at all. Thank you for supporting me against Strawdusty's incoherent dissembling.”
Distinguishable and measurable are different words, because they describe different things. One can distinguish a particular word from another, for instance, though the means for distinguishing between them is not what we would call “measurable.” That you think using normal words in normal ways is somehow “incoherent dissembling” is just another way of exhibiting how your moral weakness makes you stupider.
bmiller: “You accused me of misquoting someone. I did not misquote anyone.”
I accused you of misrepresenting what Stardusty and I had argued for, or of raising an other irrelevant point of your own invention and attributing that to us. I also predicted that you would try to weasel your way out of it by pretending that you were accused of misquoting, and that your misrepresentation is somehow exempt.
Your poor moral character makes you not only stupider, but also more predictably boring.
bmiller: “I was not quoting anyone in that snippet yet you imply I did with your claim "But we haven't ever said that.”.”
Do you deny that you were attempting to represent Stardusty’s and my position with this:
bmiller: “bmiller: ""Not only do [Stardusty and I] think ghosts cause trains to run, but entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
All the rivers flowing into a lake contribute to the energy that the dam released at 8am, but neither the lake nor any of the rivers caused the dam to start releasing it at 8am.
Conservation of energy is not the magic dust you think it is.
@Cal "Physically measureable" does not necessarily mean that it's ACTUALLY possible to measure it today - or ever. It just means there is a particular amount, a finite particular amount. This should go without saying, but you appear to be so stupid as to not realize this.
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?" Me: "Um, yes, because that logic is inevitable." stevek: "It would be hillarious if it wasn't so tragic."
What's tragic is that you seem to imagine that your staring at a computer screen right now can somehow be dissociated from prior events, events that necessarily trace all the way back to the Big Bang.
Do you know who both understands and accepts the sentence above?
Cal: "What's tragic is that you seem to imagine that your staring at a computer screen right now can somehow be dissociated from prior events, events that necessarily trace all the way back to the Big Bang."
"The history of the universe caused it to happen" - said no journal of science or physics ever.
a) The Lord of the Rings Trilogy to be written b) Cal to lie repeatedly c) the computer on your desk to be delivered to your home d) your eyes to see objects that aren't actually there e) you to believe that God exists f) the refinery to make refined oil g) the train to be late to the station
We are arguing for the same thing. Evidently, you don’t understand what that is. Hence your confused comments.
You denied it was your position September 08, 2017 1:26 PM When I asked: Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
Now you claim it is your position. If so, then answer the question. You seem upset that I'm ridiculing Strawdusty's position. My reply is that if he doesn't want his position to be ridiculed then he shouldn't express ridiculous positions.
And BTW, it seems that you didn't even know this was "your" position until September 4th when I posted the quote from a link you ignored.
Distinguishable and measurable are different words, because they describe different things. One can distinguish a particular word from another, for instance, though the means for distinguishing between them is not what we would call “measurable.” That you think using normal words in normal ways is somehow “incoherent dissembling” is just another way of exhibiting how your moral weakness makes you stupider.
Where did I use the word *measurable* in the quote you selected? You are babbling nonsense.
You obviously scored a "particular amount" on your IQ test. Perhaps Strawdusty's account of the phrase is correct after all.
bmiller: “You accused me of misquoting someone. I did not misquote anyone.”
LC:"I accused you of misrepresenting what Stardusty and I had argued for,
You are dissembling.
You accused me of misrepresenting something Strawdusty said. That is an accusation of me misquoting him.September 09, 2017 7:46 AM
Nope. Above, you claim to represent what Stardusty and I have said,
Now you've changed your story to accuse me of misrepresenting your argument rather than misrepresenting what you said.
More confirmation that you didn't read the list of posts. You didn't even read my posts of September 09, 2017 9:44 AM and September 10, 2017 6:34 PM where I answered this question.
Once again briefly: I posted that September 04, 2017 6:40 PM. Strawdusty first dissembled by changing his claim September 05, 2017 12:10 PM when he said this:
A cause may be too small in force to be physically measurable.
Since that time I have asked: "But of course all of this projection is a red herring anyway, meant to change the subject from how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Cal and Dusty will claim he doesn't believe deceased relatives move sticks. They are stupid - very stupid - but probably not that stupid, although I could be wrong about that.
I think you are wrong about that. Otherwise why insist they move sticks a "particular amount" then? It is where their incoherent metaphysics has led them. They are faced with the choice of sticking to the claim or giving up on their nonsensical scientistic philosophy (which is neither scientific nor philosophical). The cognitive dissonance is causing them to lash out and say even more ridiculous things.
""Physically measureable" does not necessarily mean that it's ACTUALLY possible to measure it today - or ever."
measure able
able to be measured. A finite thing that cannot be measured is immeasurable, not measurable.
meas·ur·a·ble ˈmeZH(ə)rəb(ə)l/ adjective adjective: measurable able to be measured. large enough to be measured;
" It just means there is a particular amount, a finite particular amount." --If you are a mechanical engineer you are the least qualified one I have ever encountered.
How stupid. You don't even know what "measurable" means. You think it is a synonym for "finite". How incredibly idiotic of you.
@bmiller A furnace causes the glass to heat and soften A machine causes the glass to change shape Cool air causes the glass to cool and solidify
Like the refinery and the father/grandfather examples, Cal and Dust would tell us the furnace caused the glass to solidify - because history of the universe, or ghosts - I'm not sure which.
bmiller: “You denied it was your position September 08, 2017 1:26 PM When I asked: Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks./ Tell us how you know this? Support your claim." / Now you claim it is your position. If so, then answer the question.”
You apparently can’t read.
Stardusty and I are arguing for the same thing.
You apparently can’t represent (understand?) what we are arguing for, but instead you invent “teeny tiny ghostly…moving sticks”), and are apparently so dishonest or stupid (both, probably) that you somehow think your invented position is what Stardusty and I have been pointing out.
Yes, you make yourself appear that stupid: you can’t comprehend what we argue (through dishonesty, stupidity, or both), and you present argument of your invention that simply reveals how dishonest and stupid you are.
And you are apparently so out of touch that you imagine that your rabid and transparent rantings do you credit, instead of revealing the extent that your moral turpitude makes you stupider, and mocke the notion that apologists are clear or rational thinkers.
Understand this: I believe you are in the throes of a pathology that is a result of your moral turpitude, and as a result I don’t care what you think; I can only hope the fact that your incoherent and stupid comments serve as a cautionary tale to any observer who wonders what comes from cultivating the thinking habits of an apologist.
bmiller: “You seem upset that I'm ridiculing Strawdusty's position. My reply is that if he doesn't want his position to be ridiculed then he shouldn't express ridiculous positions. / And BTW, it seems that you didn't even know this was "your" position until September 4th when I posted the quote from a link you ignored.”
My position is not what you invent it to be. My position can ONLY be understood by the things I write, not what you invent it to be.
Only a narcissist would think that what he imagines another’s position to be is what another’s position must be.
bmiller: “Where did I use the word *measurable* in the quote you selected? You are babbling nonsense.”
Here:
bmiller: ""Not only do [Stardusty and I] think ghosts cause trains to run, but entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some physically MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
You should be able to recognize your quote above by now because it’s been selected for citation back 7 times since you wrote it.
Like stevek, you seem to have become entirely unhinged. This exercise has been worth it for me, though, because it’s strong evidence that those of poor moral character will retreat to greater levels of irrationality (aided by their dishonesty) rather than correct as undeniable facts are stacked higher and higher in their face.
So, you are unsalvageable, at least through rational discourse. That much is becoming obvious.
Me:”I accused you of misrepresenting what Stardusty and I had argued for, bmiller: “You are dissembling.”
I don’t think you know what it means to dissemble. You have misrepresented. I pointed it out. It is not dissembling to recognize and stand against dishonesty. As you usually do, you have
bmiller: “You accused me of misrepresenting something Strawdusty said.”
Good. Hey, you wrote something that’s actually approximately correct! Good for you, good!
bmiller: “That is an accusation of me misquoting him. September 09, 2017 7:46 AM”
No, misquoting is putting quotes around something, and claiming that it’s exactly what someone said or wrote.
Misrepresenting is when you pretend that a warped, contorted, and otherwise inaccurate version of what someone was saying is what they actually had been claiming, arguing for, etc. They are similar, but different. But your claim above is, once again, factually wrong — you misrepresented, that is what you I pointed out, and pointing out that you have misrepresented
Me: “Nope. Above, you claim to represent what Stardusty and I have said, which is demonstrably false, and in so doing you definitely did NOT quote either of us "word for word" -- as is so often the case, you wriote what you misunderstand, and then attribute that misunderstanding to us.”
bmiller: “Now you've changed your story to accuse me of misrepresenting your argument rather than misrepresenting what you said. Oh, and more projection.”
There’s no practical difference between misrepresenting our argument, which is what we say, with mis-representing what we say.
You have perhaps never expressed so well the degree to which you have become unhinged, and the extent of your stupidity, as you have in your latest spate of comments.
After posting 4 times you can't answer this simple question: "Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
Not in this post:September 12, 2017 10:49 AM. Nor this one: September 12, 2017 10:49 AM. This one either: September 12, 2017 10:49 AM Nope still no answer even in this one: September 12, 2017 10:49 AM
You apparently can’t represent (understand?) what we are arguing for, but instead you invent “teeny tiny ghostly…moving sticks”), and are apparently so dishonest or stupid (both, probably) that you somehow think your invented position is what Stardusty and I have been pointing out.
Then go ahead and represent your position accurately. Tell me how you know that deceased relatives are moving sticks a "particular amount"?
All I found was more dissembling. For instance:
You posted: me: “Btw, "particular amount" does not necessarily mean "undetectable" bmiller: “You're right. To most English speakers it means a specific quantity that can be distinguished from other quantities and from no quantity at all. Thank you for supporting me against Strawdusty's incoherent dissembling.”
Distinguishable and measurable are different words, because they describe different things. One can distinguish a particular word from another, for instance, though the means for distinguishing between them is not what we would call “measurable.” That you think using normal words in normal ways is somehow “incoherent dissembling” is just another way of exhibiting how your moral weakness makes you stupider.
I asked: Where did I use the word *measurable* in the quote you selected? You are babbling nonsense.
Then you post a different quote of mine that contained the word. Then project that I am being dishonest and unhinged. Very entertaining.
No, misquoting is putting quotes around something, and claiming that it’s exactly what someone said or wrote.
For goodness sakes. You claim to be educated so you should know what words mean. If not then you should have the sense to look words up in the dictionary.
Here is the definition: Misquote: 1. quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately.
Here is what you accused me of the first time: bmiller: “You accused me of misrepresenting something Strawdusty said.” Here is what you accused me of the second time: bmiller: “Now you've changed your story to accuse me of misrepresenting your argument rather than misrepresenting what you said. Oh, and more projection.”
You first accused me of misquoting what Strawdusty said and then changed the accusation to misrepresenting your argument.
In fact, what I did was express what Strawdusty thought as evidenced by what Strawdusty said. Which I was justified in doing at the time since it was before he dissembled regarding "particular amount".
If you cited the quote 7 times, I would have expected you to have read it at least once.
I find it interesting that all you seem to be able to focus on is trying to justify your own dissembling and projection by straining to find that in what others post.
You claim that I have misrepresented "your" argument. OK, "Then go ahead and represent your position accurately. Tell me how you know that deceased relatives are moving sticks a "particular amount"?"
No one seems to want to tell me exactly how I'm misrepresenting anything.
bmiller: "Then go ahead and represent your position accurately. Tell me how you know that deceased relatives are moving sticks a "particular amount"?"
I don't know where to start. I think you should become less stupid, stop being dishonest, learn the rules of argument, and take some basic science courses.
That is, I believe, the only response your ridiculous question above deserves.
bmiller: Here is what you accused me of the first time:" bmiller [QUOTING HIMSELF]: “You accused me of misrepresenting something Strawdusty said.” Here is what you accused me of the second time: bmiller [QUOTING HIMSELF]: “Now you've changed your story to accuse me of misrepresenting your argument rather than misrepresenting what you said. Oh, and more projection.”
Awesome.
You are so off the rails that you think that the crap that you write is somehow my fault.
Dusty: ""The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
What does Dusty mean here? Here are the following attempts to understand it, and the responses we got.
1) This isn't relevant to the FW because the grandather/father aren't causing the stick to move. Response: You're stupid.
2) The deceased grandfather/father are causing the stick to move. Response: You're stupid.
3) The alive grandfather/father is causing the stick to move. Response: You're stupid. No.
4) The big bang caused the stick to move. Response: You're stupid. Events necessarily trace all the way back to the Big Bang
5) The big bang caused the The Lord of the Rings Trilogy to be written. Response: You've become entirely unhinged. Oh, and you're stupid.
When will we get the TRUE explanation of Dusty's statement? Dusty is being coy so for now all we can do is what we've been doing - reading the text as plainly as we can.
Of course you don't. You aren't capable. If someone knows what they're talking about, they can express it.
Some projection and then: That is, I believe, the only response your ridiculous question above deserves.
Ha ha. You claim I misrepresent something then refuse to explain how it should be represented. Dissembling again.
If you can't answer this, then I have to conclude I've got it right. "Then go ahead and represent your position accurately. Tell me how you know that deceased relatives are moving sticks a "particular amount"?"
You are so off the rails that you think that the crap that you write is somehow my fault.
No. You are guilty of falsely accusing me and of, well almost everything, and of course that is your fault. I'm not surprised since you do it every post.
I figure I must have an accurate description of the claim now since no one has corrected me. If I did, someone would have responded to this: You claim that I have misrepresented "your" argument. OK, "Then go ahead and represent your position accurately. Tell me how you know that deceased relatives are moving sticks a "particular amount"?"
No one seems to want to tell me exactly how I'm misrepresenting anything.
The problem is that there is no way in principle for physics to support this argument whether one dissembles on the meaning of "particular amount" or not.
When will we get the TRUE explanation of Dusty's statement?
No one has told us how we got it wrong. So we must have it right.
What is most interesting is that we've found the First Way being attacked as being out of touch with Science. But when the objections are analyzed, we find that the objections themselves contradict Science.
This fact is so disturbing that the 2 atheists have now denied Science itself, leaving them no basis for their belief system. This causes cognitive dissonance.
A sure tell for someone in that condition is that they start to read things they want to believe rather than what is actually written.
stevek, quoting Stardusty: ""The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount." stevek: "What does Dusty mean here?"
Can you reference the datestamp for the comment in which Stardusty wrote the quotation you provided above?
I got curious about the ghost comments but wasn't seeing where it came from, thank you for the link SteveK.
To be fair, it does not appear that Stardusty was claiming that ancestors are contributing force to a sticking being moved. Rather, it looks as if he is denying that there is such a thing as an ongoing effect. And if there is no such thing as an ongoing effect, then indeed every physical cause/effect relationship is conceptually identical, with the sole difference being length of time and number of subsequent cause/effect "pairs" between them.
So, I think to summarize Stardusty, we would have something like this:
60 years after grandparents had a child, their grandchild moved a stick. Had the grandparents not had a child, the stick would have never moved.
6 years after parents had a child, he moved a stick. Had the parents not had a child, the stick would have never moved.
A child moves a stick. Had the child's nerves not carried impulses between the brain and hand, the stick would have never moved.
In all cases, Stardusty is (I think) saying the causes leading up to the child moving the stick are prior to the effect of the stick moving, so they are not categorically different from one another. And presumably, what appears to be an ongoing effect of the child waving the stick around is in fact a series of effects being caused by temporally prior causes. Thus, no essentially ordered series exists with a child moving a stick, as the ongoing effect is illusory when the details are examined in more precise detail.
bmiller: "When will we get the TRUE explanation of Dusty's statement? / No one has told us how we got it wrong. So we must have it right."
What exactly isn't "TRUE" about Stardusty's explanation (below):
Stardusty: "The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount.
Removing any one of those causal "agents" prior to their propagation of causal influence would have prevented the effect.
Removing any one of those causal "agents" after they propagated their causal influence does not undo their effect.
The grandfather and the previous heartbeat and the previous nanometer of muscular contraction are all part of an accidental series.
bmiller: ""Then go ahead and represent your position accurately. Tell me how you know that deceased relatives are moving sticks a "particular amount"?"
Your question indicates that you still want to assert that we are somehow arguing for something pushing something now (per AT physics), whereas we have steadfastly explained that events occur over time, and that the notion of instantaneous motion ("ARE moving sticks") is simply unsound.
So your question reveals that you don't understand how physical events occur, over time. And your failure to grasp this simple fact and use the terms of physical description properly employed can be seen in the awkward way in which you use your antiquated notions to describe our arguments.
To be fair, it does not appear that Stardusty was claiming that ancestors are contributing force to a sticking being moved.
Perhaps not, but he specifically answered that they are contributing a "particular amount" of force to the stick being moved. He is logically stuck with that assertion or he will have to admit there are different kinds of causal series.
A child moves a stick. Had the child's nerves not carried impulses between the brain and hand, the stick would have never moved.
This is the sort of causal series that physics can theoretically provide some sort formula to compute the quantitative amount of force derived from the existing person. An essentially ordered series.
60 years after grandparents had a child, their grandchild moved a stick. Had the grandparents not had a child, the stick would have never moved.
Yes, this is an accidentally ordered series. Physics cannot and does not provide a formula for the force derived from deceased relatives being that this is a different type of causal series.
In all cases, Stardusty is (I think) saying the causes leading up to the child moving the stick are prior to the effect of the stick moving, so they are not categorically different from one another.
But if they are *not* categorically different, then physics should likewise be able to theoretically provide some mathematically derived amount of force from each mover just as in the case of the existing child's movement including all the deceased male relatives. Physics does not have any such theory, so they must be different.
So. Science claims to be able to exhaustively account for the entire amount of force that the existing child is exerting solely due to his existing form and matter. There is no mathematical expression in this event related to a great grandfather's begetting sons. If the great grandfather's contribution was of the same category, it too should have a mathematical expression we could use to calculate that force.
Thus they are categorically different.
If you read the whole thread, I pressed him repeatedly to give me ratio or amount of force deceased relatives apply to presently moving sticks in an attempt to get him to see this. Want to guess if he did? :-)
@legion If I'm understanding your attempt to summarize what Dusty said, it would mean my statements (4) and (5) above are accurate. The reason being "all series are accidental" - the keyword being ALL. The same is true regarding my example of the glass where I concluded that example with a statement similar to Dusty's
Me: "The furnace and the machine were all instrumental in that particular glass cooling & solidifying a particular amount."
I've been told that I'm stupid and unhinged to think this is what they mean, yet this appears to be exactly what they mean.
What exactly isn't "TRUE" about Stardusty's explanation (below):
See my reply to Legion.
Your question indicates that you still want to assert that we are somehow arguing for something pushing something now (per AT physics), whereas we have steadfastly explained that events occur over time, and that the notion of instantaneous motion ("ARE moving sticks") is simply unsound.
Actually my question is an attempt to get you to explain exactly how things that don't exist cause material things that do exist to move. Physics can exhaustively account for all the force used by a man to move a stick using only the existing form and matter of the man.
I agree that there is a sense that deceased ancestors are responsible for the existence of the man and that the man would not be here moving a stick if not for those ancestors. But that is different from giving an explanation for what force is physically moving the stick now.
Motion is the description of how an existing thing changes wrt time. That is why things that don't exist, don't move and so cannot cause things that do exist to move.
Dusty: Consider the father, as you wish. What happened with the father?
He had sex with the mother, and in physical motion muscles contracted to pump a fluid, in physical motion cells swam and joined, intermolecular forces caused a chemical reaction of DNA joining, cells multiplied with duplicate chemical reactions due to intermolecular forces, a young heart began to beat, blood cells were pumped, and pumped, and pumped, until one day a particular blood cell was pumped to a particular muscle to deliver some molecules of oxygen that propagated the chemical energy that moved the stick a particular nanometer.
All in an unbroken "accidental" series."
Keep going back in time and - yup - the Big Bang moved the sticks. Delusional is the kindest word I can use to describe this.
@bmiller "But that is different from giving an explanation for what force is physically moving the stick now."
Very different. The science deniers tell us that they know how causality works. They aren't demonstrating that knowledge. The teeing up of a golf ball is responsible for your ball being launched toward the green, but NOT causally responsible.
@bmiller I believe it was you that informed the science deniers that motion has a beginning, middle and end. When a motion ends something new comes along to start a new motion. Each motion is separate and each has essentially ordered objects in the series.
Delusional Dusty thinks it's all one, long unbroken motion. No scientific journal says this. No science class teaches this. In fact, they say and teach the opposite because it's obvious.
bmiller: "Perhaps not, but he specifically answered that they ARE contributing a "particular amount" of force to the stick being moved. He is logically stuck with that assertion or he will have to admit there are different kinds of causal series."
You lie.
Stardusty: "The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat WERE all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
Consistently lying makes bmiller consistently stupid.
Cal Which of course means that neither one are causing the motion of the sticks. Which means they are not relevant to the FW argument. Thanks for confirming I was correct about that.
You lie. Another typical response from a projector who claimed he'd read the list I posted. Ho hum.
But please explain what you think I got wrong.
Do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do notsupply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks? If so, I agree.
Or do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks? If so, I disagree.
The relevant question is exactly what is causing the force moving the stick. I claim that only an existent being can cause the force. Do you claim otherwise?
Delusional Dusty thinks it's all one, long unbroken motion. No scientific journal says this. No science class teaches this. In fact, they say and teach the opposite because it's obvious.
Yes, I think the problem is that Strawdusty has some notion in his mind that motion has an existence of it's own separate from actual materially existing things.
Don't know why, but that's the best I can figure. I'd be happy to discuss that with him in a rational manner, but it seems he doesn't like to do it that way.
Legion of Logic said... September 13, 2017 11:32 AM
" In all cases, Stardusty is (I think) saying the causes leading up to the child moving the stick are prior to the effect of the stick moving, so they are not categorically different from one another. And presumably, what appears to be an ongoing effect of the child waving the stick around is in fact a series of effects being caused by temporally prior causes. Thus, no essentially ordered series exists with a child moving a stick, as the ongoing effect is illusory when the details are examined in more precise detail.
Is that about right, Stardusty?" --Hallelujah!!! Can I have an amen?-)
Now, if you disagree then please state where exactly my analysis is mistaken. Since you have taken the time and expended the effort to accurately state my position I will do my best to read your words as accurately as I am able and respond to them in good faith in reciprocation for the good faith you have displayed with respect to my words.
Dusty: "Now, if you disagree then please state where exactly my analysis is mistaken."
Your statements are about the sequence of events, not about causality. My example of the glass makes your stupidity all the more clear. A furnace that heats is not responsible (causally) for that glass cooling a particular amount. (Duh!)
Now, if you disagree then please state where exactly my analysis is mistaken.
You can see that here: September 13, 2017 1:13 PM.
A man moves a stick by applying force. Science claims to be able to attribute 100% of that force to the existing man. None to deceased ancient ancestors.
So the type of series causing the man-hand-stick motion is fundamentally different than the series of men begetting sons. The first is referred to as an essentially ordered series while the second is referred to as an accidentally ordered series.
3,162 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 2401 – 2600 of 3162 Newer› Newest»@Little Cal.
Poor little projector.
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.
Hmm. You understood the phrase "uniformly changing" perfectly in the context of this discussion community, while I doubt those outside would without supplying that context. Similary the word "state" could be understood differently outside this discussion. No doubt you will still disagree, but it certainly looks like you are projecting by attributing a false motive to me especially since I am not shy about specifically quoting you when I intend to. It's also typical that you were more interested in the motive of your opponent than the actual argument, which is irrelevant to the actual argument. But if irrationality is your strength, then by all means proceed. It's really funny.
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.
Learn to read. He didn't use the term *state* at all much less consistently. You were the only one who introduced momentum as far as I can tell.
But let's examine your definition of momentum as being a property of an object, while "uniform motion" as used in the definition of inertia is not.
The definition of the momentum of an object is it's mass times it's velocity (mv). Zero velocity, zero momentum. Slow velocity, low momentum. Fast velocity, high momentum. Uniform velocity, uniform momentum (as long as mass does not change for all cases). If there is no such thing as the velocity of an object, there is no such thing as the momemtum of an object. So if velocity is not a property of an object, neither is momentum.
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.
More projection. But it seems you don't even understand the list of arguments you propose to defend else you would have recognized it when Strawdusty raised them in different forms. If you want to proceed, post the ones you think have not been refuted and I will post the appropriate refutation again.
Now some housekeeping. Since we have had a discussion of the proper use of quotations, you provided the following quote:
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."
You did not provide a citation so I could examine the context and qualifications of the source of the quote.
Please provide the source and properly cite future quotes.
bmiller said... August 20, 2017 1:31 PM
"In physics, motion is a change in position of an object over time. Motion is described in terms of displacement, distance, velocity, acceleration, time and speed. Motion of a body is observed by attaching a frame of reference to an observer and measuring the change in position of the body relative to that frame."
--You either did not read or did not understand your own cited reference.
A frame of reference is "attached", meaning it is arbitrary and relative and not a property of the object in question. Depending on the reference frame "attached" an object is simultaneously stationary, or moving at some velocity. For example, you can sit on the surface of the Earth and stare at a rock that seems stationary, because we tend to "attach" a frame of reference such that local Earth is said to be stationary. Yet, a different frame of reference will indicate movement at up to 1000mph, depending on latitude.
If uniform motion is a change for the rock then the rock both is and is not changing simultaneously, clearly an absurd assertion.
Position is not a property of an object, rather, it is a relationship with other objects.
@Strawdusty,
A frame of reference is "attached", meaning it is arbitrary and relative and not a property of the object in question
Yes, the choice of a particular frame of reference is usually chosen to make the math simpler. No one claimed that a frame of reference was a property of an object.
Depending on the reference frame "attached" an object is simultaneously stationary, or moving at some velocity.
If you chose a reference frame, the object could be stationary or moving at some velocity wrt that reference frame according to an observer in that frame. Another observer chosing a different reference frame may have different observations.
If one equivocates between reference frames, one can confuse oneself. In the same way that one could confuse oneself by saying a door is both an exit and an entrance simultaneously which is absurd because exiting and entering are opposites.
If uniform motion is a change for the rock then the rock both is and is not changing simultaneously, clearly an absurd assertion.
As it is to say a door is both and entrance and an exit (if one insists on equivocating).
Here are 2 quotes from your favorite reference. The velocity of an object is considered a physical property of the object.
The velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time.
List of properties
The physical properties of an object that are traditionally defined by classical mechanics are often called mechanical properties. Other broad categories, commonly cited, are electrical properties and optical properties. Examples of physical properties include:[1]
absorption (physical), absorption (electromagnetic), albedo
angular momentum, area, brittleness,
boiling point, capacitance, color,
concentration, density, dielectric,
ductility, distribution, efficacy,
elasticity, electric charge, electrical conductivity,
electrical impedance, electric field, electric potential,
emission, flow rate (mass), flow rate (volume),
fluidity, frequency, hardness,
inductance, Intrinsic impedance, intensity,
irradiance, length, location,
luminance, luminescence, luster,
malleability, magnetic field, magnetic flux,
mass, melting point, moment,
momentum, opacity, permeability,
permittivity, plasticity, pressure,
radiance, resistivity, reflectivity,
refractive index, spin, solubility,
specific heat, strength, stiffness,
temperature, tension, thermal conductivity,
velocity, viscosity, volume,
wave impedance
bmiller: "Hmm. You understood the phrase "uniformly changing" perfectly in the context of this discussion community…”
Nope, exactly wrong (quelle surprise!). I pointed out that "uniformly changing“ is “a nonsensical term of your confused invention.”
You try to portray my expressing the above, impossibly, as meaning the opposite of what I wrote, instead writing the dishonest, “You understood the phrase "uniformly changing" perfectly..."
Only someone genuinely dishonest, faced with obvious and easily attainable facts that counter his falsehoods, can be as stupid as you make yourself appear.
bmiller: "Learn to read. He didn't use the term *state* at all much less consistently."
How stupid of you; you seem to imagine that someone could equivocate by not using a term. This is why people like Stardusty and I bother interacting with you — you not only get things wrong in a straightforward way, but you get things wrong in such preposterous ways that it boggles, and invites speculation and explanation.
Let’s see as you try to understand physics (again):
bmiller: “The definition of the momentum of an object is it's mass times it's velocity (mv).”
Yup.
bmiller: “Zero velocity, zero momentum.”
Yup.
bmiller: “Slow velocity, low momentum. Fast velocity, high momentum.”
If you mean that m * v < m * 2v, then yup!
bmiller: “Uniform velocity, uniform momentum (as long as mass does not change for all cases).”
m * v = m * v. Yup!
bmiller: “If there is no such thing as the velocity of an object, there is no such thing as the momemtum of an object.”
Said another way, an object with 0 velocity has no momentum.
bmiller: “So if velocity is not a property of an object, neither is momentum.”
Velocity is indeed a property of an object. What’s your point?
bmiller: “More projection. But it seems you don't even understand the list of arguments you propose to defend else you would have recognized it when Strawdusty raised them in different forms. If you want to proceed, post the ones you think have not been refuted and I will post the appropriate refutation again.”
I just did. You refused to do it, as you have always done.
But I’d love to see you focus one time, so I’ll try (again).
Here’s the exchange, regarding your supposed rebuttal (the first you reference in your silly list):
bmiller posts a silly list, pretending that the list references prior meaningful rebuttals.
I go to the first one. It is a few spare words from bmiller, followed by a rambling quote from Aquinas.
I point out that bmiller’s supposed rebuttals are what we all know they are — a kind of pretending, or crap.
bmiller continues to pretend:
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.”
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.”
So, go ahead. Answer my question. Show us what you think a meaningful rebuttal is.
>> Velocity is indeed a property of an object. What’s your point?
Object A exists at T=0. Only one reference frame is necessary. The velocity of Object A at T=0 is a nonsensical concept since velocity requires two different reference frames.
@Little Cal,
Velocity is indeed a property of an object. What’s your point?
I doubt Strawdusty would agree with you. I think his project is to reify motion and separate it from existing things.
But if you read read the list, you would see that I included location in bold type also. A change in location is a change in a physical property of an object.
But Strawdusty doesn't think so.
" 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.
Just like the measurement of momentum relies on the measurement of velocity, the measurement of velocity relies on the measurement of an object's location.
@Little Cal,
bmiller: “More projection. But it seems you don't even understand the list of arguments you propose to defend else you would have recognized it when Strawdusty raised them in different forms. If you want to proceed, post the ones you think have not been refuted and I will post the appropriate refutation again.”
I just did.
No you didn't. You listed posted zero arguments. Look up the word argument Little Cal.
I go to the first one. It is a few spare words from bmiller, followed by a rambling quote from Aquinas.
I'm sorry that you don't understand the actual arguments you propose to defend. Why don't you actually post an argument?
@SteveK,
Good point regarding instantaneous velocity.
Modern physicists assume the concept. Adherents of Scientism should consider themselves committed to it since *Science*. Funny to watch them jettison *Science* when they start to understand it.
@bmiller
I haven't been keeping up on your latest comments but I posted that comment because it wasn't too long ago that we were told repeatedly that motion requires two reference frames. Properties don't.
So both cannot be correct.
For an object in uniform motion, either velocity is a property of the object at T=0, or velocity is not a property of the object at T=0.
Which one will the skeptics go with?
Me: "Velocity is indeed a property of an object. What’s your point?"
Stardusty: "I doubt Strawdusty would agree with you. I think his project is to reify motion and separate it from existing things."
As far as I can tell Stardusty and I agree about the facts of reality -- whether or not something is called one thing or another is largely irrelevant so long as the underlying facts and assumptions are understood.
bmiller: "But if you read read the list, you would see that I included location in bold type also. A change in location is a change in a physical property of an object."
I agree that location, velocity, and momentum could all be considered properties of an object, but they are also attachments to objects -- one doesn't get location, velocity, or momentum from an object alone, but in reference to an object in reference to something else.
Again, what is your point?
bmiller: "Just like the measurement of momentum relies on the measurement of velocity, the measurement of velocity relies on the measurement of an object's location."
One could just as easily say that space is not a property of an object, that space(time) is space(time) and that objects are properties that occuly it.
Again, what is your point?
@Cal,
As far as I can tell Stardusty and I agree about the facts of reality -- whether or not something is called one thing or another is largely irrelevant so long as the underlying facts and assumptions are understood.
I disagree. Words have accepted meanings. When you agree with that an object's location/position is a property of that object and Strawdusty explictly says it is not a property of that object then to imply you are saying the same thing is nonsense.
Again, what is your point?
Strawdusty:"--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.
Location is a property of the object. If the location of an object is changing, then that property of the object is changing, so that object is changing. The statement is false.
See also the post from August 19, 2017 4:06 PM
Now I mentioned that it appears to me that Strawdusty is trying separate motion from existent objects. He has not replied, the many times I've suggested it, so I have to conclude that is his thought process. I disagree with that notion.
One could just as easily say that space is not a property of an object, that space(time) is space(time) and that objects are properties that occuly it.
Again, what is your point?
If one changed the subject from what constitutes changes to a particular object to what are the properties of space(time), then that would be the fallacy of Ignoratio elenchi.
But the topic is the First Way and the First Way makes reference to the motion of at least one particular material object changing.
Now a particular object could change in 2 different ways. It could change in virtue of it's properties changing (accidental change) and still remain the same thing. It could also change is such a way that it is no longer the same thing (substantial or essential change). It is former sense of change the First Way is concerned with. Only an existing thing can cause another existing thing to change and so on.
bmiller: "No you didn't. You listed posted zero arguments. Look up the word argument Little Cal."
Me: "I go to the first one. It is a few spare words from bmiller, followed by a rambling quote from Aquinas."
bmiller: "I'm sorry that you don't understand the actual arguments you propose to defend."
You claimed to have refuted the criticisms offered here. You listed a reference to comments that you claim refute these criticisms. I went to the first referenced comment. It was irrelevant to the criticisms offered of the First Way -- to the many ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument.
I don't care that you can't refute the criticisms offered. But you're just lying when you say you have refuted them, as anyone looking at your reference list can see for themselves -- your comments are inconsequential to the criticisms offered, and are filled with examples of your hypocrisy, dishonest, and narcissism.
The fact that you can't actually elucidate how your post refutes a criticism of the First Way -- which criticism you are addressing, and how your refutation negates that criticism -- is another example of how your dishonesty blunts the already dull edge of your mind.
bmiller: " Why don't you actually post an argument?"
I have made my argument many times now, and I have indicated that I agree entirely with the more rigorous analysis provided by Stardusty. Our criticisms parallel and repeat on the same themes -- the many and obvious ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument. My criticisms of the First Way are my argument. The fact that you don't know what those criticisms are, and how it is obvious that the First Way violates the rules of good argument, is evidence of how stupid you must be.
bmiller said.. August 23, 2017 1:01 PM .
" Location is a property of the object."
--No, it isn't, it is an observed relationship within a system system, only incorrectly attributed as a property of the object.
" See also the post from August 19, 2017 4:06 PM"
--You again did not read or did not understand your own reference.
@Little Cal,
You claimed to have refuted the criticisms offered here. You listed a reference to comments that you claim refute these criticisms. I went to the first referenced comment. It was irrelevant to the criticisms offered of the First Way
Nonsense. You don't even know what the "criticisms" are. Don't you pay attention at all? Where you not aware that Strawdusty repeatedly kept posting his list of nonsense "criticism"? Did you not even read his posts to see what his "criticisms" were? If you had you would have seen that the first 3 comments all address the same claim (as I pointed out). A claim that you yourself listed as failing to be addressed! August 04, 2017 6:00 AM. Hilarious!
The fact that you can't actually elucidate how your post refutes a criticism of the First Way -- which criticism you are addressing, and how your refutation negates that criticism -- is another example of how your dishonesty blunts the already dull edge of your mind.
Another act of projection.
bmiller: " Why don't you actually post an argument?"
I have made my argument many times now, and I have indicated that I agree entirely with the more rigorous analysis provided by Stardusty. Our criticisms parallel and repeat on the same themes -- the many and obvious ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument. My criticisms of the First Way are my argument. The fact that you don't know what those criticisms are, and how it is obvious that the First Way violates the rules of good argument, is evidence of how stupid you must be.
No you haven't made any arguments, you listed a bunch of erroneous assertions. You have no logical arguments. Neither does Strawdusty.
As demonstrated where I pointed it out in the following posts:
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
@Strawdusty,
" Location is a property of the object."
--No, it isn't, it is an observed relationship within a system system, only incorrectly attributed as a property of the object.
Thank you once again for the demonstration of the absurdity of arguing that *science* refutes the First Way by refuting *science* itself. Very entertaining.
" See also the post from August 19, 2017 4:06 PM"
--You again did not read or did not understand your own reference.
I was referencing your post. You claimed that location was not a property of an object. Science as practiced in the West does consider it a property of an object as does Cal, unless now, you convince him to abandon *Science* as the ultimate reality.
@bmiller,
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism?
Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
@Cal,
Read the second post with this timestamp:
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
Then read these posts:
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM
March 19, 2017 12:31 PM
Then read this post.
July 22, 2017 2:39 PM
Then read this August 11, 2017 12:26 PM again, where I listed these same posts almost 2 weeks ago.
bmiller said... August 23, 2017 10:58 PM
" Location is a property of the object."
SP --No, it isn't, it is an observed relationship within a system system, only incorrectly attributed as a property of the object.
" Thank you once again for the demonstration of the absurdity of arguing that *science* refutes the First Way by refuting *science* itself. Very entertaining."
--Vacuous. Non-responsive.
" See also the post from August 19, 2017 4:06 PM"
SP --You again did not read or did not understand your own reference.
" I was referencing your post."
--Your reference in that series was a Wiki page you either did not read or did not understand.
From the first sentence of your linked reference:
"A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system."
For there to be a location one necessarily needs to observe the relationship of one object to at least one other object in a system. Location is a description or observation of that system, not a property of the individual object.
An object in uniform motion does not itself undergo an intrinsic change. No property of the object is changing by virtue of its uniform motion. What changes is the observation or description of the system of objects.
BTW, Feser has another pulp fiction out on Amazon. Predictably his little gaggle of sycophants are fawning all over him about it. Billy finally got back to me with an "argument" that is pure imagination because he can't think of a single real example of a thing that changes absent a so called "local" motion.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/08/five-proofs-is-out.html?showComment=1503545097772#c804374861072498144
@Strawdusty,
" I was referencing your post."
--Your reference in that series was a Wiki page you either did not read or did not understand.
From the first sentence of your linked reference:
"A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system."
I understand it perfectly well. It lists location as a physical property of an object as I quoted here: August 21, 2017 12:52 PM
You disagree with the scientific definition of what a physical property is.
If you are going to argue that *science* refutes something, learn what *science* says.
Me: "What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise."
bmiller: "Read the [ lists 4 other posts ] ...where I listed these same posts almost 2 weeks ago."
No.
Me: "What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise."
It's obvious that you can't respond to my question without exposing how vacuous your claims to refutation actually are. Which is why you will try to avoid answering direct questions, because direct questions expose your stupidity, and how it is fueled by your hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism.
You and your claims at refutation remain a joke.
bmiller: "Words have accepted meanings. When you agree with that an object's location/position is a property of that object and Strawdusty explictly says it is not a property of that object then to imply you are saying the same thing is nonsense."
What I originally wrote,"Velocity is indeed a property of an object." was wrong.
I was working with the definitional understanding that anything that can be measured is a property, but Stardusty is correct in pointing out that the measurement of an object's location (upon which its velocity is dependent) requires something additional to the object per se -- a system in which location is tracked, independent of the object itself. So, calling velocity a property OF AN OBJECT can be misleading (as I wrote), because it risks implying that the velocity being tracked resides solely within the object per se, when in fact the velocity is a property of the relationship with at least one other object (a system).
bmiller: "You disagree with the scientific definition of what a physical property is. / If you are going to argue that *science* refutes something, learn what *science* says."
It's readily apparent that Stardusty knows far more about the physical sciences than anyone who's commented on this thread; your pretending to be something other than a home-schooled troll, made more stupid by the apologist trifecta of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism, is as laughable as Stevek's silly lie that he is a mechanical engineer.
Do you suppose that people who are regularly dishonest are more often on the right side, or the wrong side, of an argument? Does it ever occur to apologists that their dishonesty reveals that the only strategy they can resort to is pretending, and the only ones they seem to be fooling is themselves?
Sad.
Cal Metzger said.. August 26, 2017 3:06 PM.
" What I originally wrote,"Velocity is indeed a property of an object." was wrong."
--In terms of an intrinsic property that is changing in uniform motion such that an external changer is called for there are no such properties. However, people tend to speak in various terms in various circumstances for various purposes. In some of those circumstances it is considered that an object in uniform motion has just that, motion which is uniform, that motion being a velocity that is not changing, velocity being a speed in a direction.
In this way of speaking motion is a property of an object that does not change when in uniform motion, by definition of the word uniform.
Somebody like bmiller will read a wiki page with no concept of these various perspectives, latch onto a few words he thinks are dictated by "science" because they appear on a wiki page, and play endless whackamole with those words, probably because he gets some perverse pleasure from instigating responses to his willfully ignorant scattershot "arguments".
" I was working with the definitional understanding that anything that can be measured is a property,"
--Yes, but a property of what, and in what context, and denoting what?
If we want to say motion is an intrinsic property of an object then it does not change in uniform motion therefore no changer is called for.
If we wish to break motion down to postion changes over time and say position is changing then under inertia and object is able to change itself in this sense, and thus no changer is called fore.
If we take a systems approach to position then position is not a property of the object, rather, it is an observation of the system and it is the observer who assigns an arbitrary position to the object based on an arbitrary reference frame. Here motion is relative and the object in question could potentially be not intrinsically in motion yet be observed to be in motion because the reference frame is moving.
" your pretending to be something other than a home-schooled troll, made more stupid by the apologist trifecta of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism, is as laughable as Stevek's silly lie that he is a mechanical engineer."
--Yes, while I generally hesitate to use the word troll because it is so often attributed to anybody who takes a contrary position, in this case the conclusion is a choice for bmiller between extreme trollishness, versus extremely delusional, versus extremely stupid.
@Little Cal,
bmiller: "Read the [ lists 4 other posts ] ...where I listed these same posts almost 2 weeks ago."
No.
It's obvious that you can't respond to my question without exposing how vacuous your claims to refutation actually are.
Look, I listed the post from Strawdusty and the 3 posts of mine addressed it in varying degrees of detail. It seems you not only can't read, can't understand what you do read, so now you just refuse to read at all. Amazing!
@Little Cal,
What I originally wrote,"Velocity is indeed a property of an object." was wrong.
No, you *were* right and now you *are* wrong. Location and velocity are properties of an object, considered *extrinsic* properties.
bmiller: "You disagree with the scientific definition of what a physical property is. / If you are going to argue that *science* refutes something, learn what *science* says."
It's readily apparent that Stardusty knows far more about the physical sciences than anyone who's commented on this thread;
Nonsense. If he had known what the heck he was talking about he would never have uttered his nonsense about location not being a property of an object. He now realizes his blunder and has added the qualification *intrinsic*.
Do you suppose that people who are regularly dishonest are more often on the right side, or the wrong side, of an argument?
As a little projector, you should know.
@Strawdusty,
Somebody like bmiller will read a wiki page with no concept of these various perspectives, latch onto a few words he thinks are dictated by "science" because they appear on a wiki page, and play endless whackamole with those words, probably because he gets some perverse pleasure from instigating responses to his willfully ignorant scattershot "arguments".
That's hilarious. It seems to me that wiki pages are the only thing you read since I've rarely seen you quote any other authority except *random internet guy*. But at least you've admitted your mistake by adding the *intrinsic* qualification. I assume you concede that location is an *extrinsic* property of an object now (but I'm probably wrong). But you have other problems.
" I was working with the definitional understanding that anything that can be measured is a property,"
--Yes, but a property of what, and in what context, and denoting what?
Read a physics book. If you can.
The topic was an object in motion. Location is a property of an object. So change of location of an object is a property of that object called velocity. Change of instantaneous velocity is also a property of an object called acceleration.
But if location is not a property of an object, then it is not a property of a thing. If it is not a property of a thing, then it is a property of nothing. Nothing does not exist and has no properties, so then location, velocity and acceleration must not exist.
Kinetic energy is ½mv². m refers to the mass of an object and v refers to the velocity of the object. If there is no such thing as the velocity of the object (uniform or otherwise), then it cannot be said an object has kinetic energy. The same can be said for momentum.
This all seems very mysterious to you. You don't seem to have any grounding in the physical sciences at all.
Me: "What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise."
bmiller: "Look, I listed the post from Strawdusty and the 3 posts of mine addressed it in varying degrees of detail. It seems you not only can't read, can't understand what you do read, so now you just refuse to read at all. Amazing!"
Your claims are thus shown, yet again, to be completely vacuous. It's obvious that you can't do as I ask above, and that all you can do is pretend. You seem to think that others are as comfortable with dishonesty and pretending as you are, but that is not the case; you are transparently dishonest, and it makes you and all other apologists look as bad as, well, you are.
Me: "Do you suppose that people who are regularly dishonest are more often on the right side, or the wrong side, of an argument?"
bmiller: "As a little projector, you should know."
By projector I think you mean psychological projection, which would mean that you think that I am regularly dishonest, and falsely accuse you of that which I am guilty.
Cite me being dishonest. Or (no way!) are you being dishonest when you pretend that that is the case?
bmiller: "This all seems very mysterious to you. You don't seem to have any grounding in the physical sciences at all."
You seem home-schooled, with no real (high school) level understanding of science. Your inability to recognize the vast imbalance in Stardusty's expertise and understanding versus your ignorance and stupidity about scientific principles and physical descriptions is not only breathtaking, but a powerful confirmation of the scale upon which the Dunning-Kruger effect can be seen. Until now, I would have guessed that Dunning Kruger broke down with the extremely low skilled, but it seems that it just ratchets up to improbable levels. Impressive indeed.
bmiller is correct about the property of velocity and location. It's the subject of philosophy of science. If an object has no relative location, it cannot have a relative location change over time and thus no relative velocity. If it has no relative velocity it has no relative motion.
@Little Cal,
Your claims are thus shown, yet again, to be completely vacuous.
If you refuse to read the posts all that is shown is that you won't engage in rational discussion. Once again. I guess that is beyond your capacity.
Regarding the subject of the physical sciences. If you have any actual counter-argument let's hear it. Otherwise it appears you are too ignorant to engage in the discussion much less judge the positions. Oh, and more irrational and irrelevant ad hominem attacks....ho hum. Pouty children will be pouty children. ☹
Cal has a such a girl crush on Dusty, the boy wonder of science, that he can't risk admitting that Dusty is wrong because then he'll get rebuffed. Relationship problems.
bmiller: "If you refuse to read the posts all that is shown is that you won't engage in rational discussion. Once again. I guess that is beyond your capacity."
I have read the posts. I have demonstrated that your claims of having refuted the criticisms showing why the First Way is a bad argument in those comments are completely vacuous.
Like all apologists, you can only imply that you have good answers elsewhere, NEVER in the place where people can evaluate it for themselves.
Pretend pretend pretend.
bmiller: "Regarding the subject of the physical sciences. If you have any actual counter-argument let's hear it."
You have made no meaningful response to the criticisms offered of the First Way. One observation regarding your inability is your obvious and glaring misapprehension of basic science. This observation is not an argument; it is an explanation for your failure, just as my explanation for your stupidity is that you are made dumber by your hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism. You fail to understand the dynamics behind even this simple discussion dynamic.
bmiller: "Otherwise it appears you are too ignorant to engage in the discussion much less judge the positions. Oh, and more irrational and irrelevant ad hominem attacks....ho hum. Pouty children will be pouty children."
I notice that you have failed to come up with a citation that demonstrates that I am the one who is regularly dishonest, not you.
How many examples of dishonesty do you think one needs to observe before writing you off as a kind of idiot, made stupider by his moral failings? Do you think your consistent dishonesty makes you somehow smarter, or do you think it makes you stupider? Have you ever wondered about that?
Also, don't forget:
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise
@Little Cal,
I have read the posts. I have demonstrated that your claims of having refuted the criticisms showing why the First Way is a bad argument in those comments are completely vacuous.
No you haven't. You haven't even engaged in the 4 posts I pointed you to August 24, 2017 5:22 PM (again).
Like all apologists, you can only imply that you have good answers elsewhere, NEVER in the place where people can evaluate it for themselves.
As I said before:
"If you refuse to read the posts all that is shown is that you won't engage in rational discussion. Once again. I guess that is beyond your capacity."
Your latest post removes all doubt.
bmiller: "Regarding the subject of the physical sciences. If you have any actual counter-argument let's hear it."
You have made no meaningful response to the criticisms offered of the First Way. One observation regarding your inability is your obvious and glaring misapprehension of basic science. This observation is not an argument; it is an explanation for your failure, just as my explanation for your stupidity is that you are made dumber by your hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism. You fail to understand the dynamics behind even this simple discussion dynamic.
Coward.
This is my rating of your latest post.
More childish rants, name calling, projection and lack of factual content or rational argument. In other words another typical Little Cal pout-fest.
@SteveK,
Cal has a such a girl crush on Dusty, the boy wonder of science, that he can't risk admitting that Dusty is wrong because then he'll get rebuffed. Relationship problems.
Heh heh.
Yes, it must really be strong, for Little Cal to give up on *science*. That was the only argument he had in his arsenal other than calling people *poopy heads*.
Me: "I have read the posts."
bmiller: "No you haven't."
Um, yes, I have; I've followed this entire thread. You are (surprise) dishonest, which makes you wrong, which is another way of saying that you are stupid.
Me: "I have demonstrated that your claims of having refuted the criticisms showing why the First Way is a bad argument in those comments are completely vacuous.
bmiller: "You haven't even engaged in the 4 posts I pointed you to August 24, 2017 5:22 PM (again)."
I would indulge your silly narcissism by re-reading more of your vacuous content.
No, we should start with your silly claim (that you have refuted the criticisms of the First Way) by examining the very first comment you cited as having done so.
If you aren't a hypocritical, dishonest narcissist, made more stupid by your moral deficiencies, you would respond to this question, per the silly claim you tried to pawn off:
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
@Little Cal,
Me: "I have read the posts."
bmiller: "No you haven't."
Um, yes, I have;
You've given no indication that you have, so where is the evidence that you did? You specifically refused to read the 4 posts I listed in response to your request.
If you aren't a hypocritical, dishonest narcissist, made more stupid by your moral deficiencies, you would respond to this question, per the silly claim you tried to pawn off:
I responded multiple times already little projector.
I suspect that you want to stop looking foolish by discussing the actual content of the posts and prefer look foolish by arguing ad hominem and other various irrelevant fallacies. I suppose by limiting yourself to only fallacies of irrelevance you avoid displaying your full range of lack of logical thought processes. Don't worry, we all have noticed anyway.
Now if you don't understand the contents of the posts, then I can help you. Just ask.
bmiller: "Now if you don't understand the contents of the posts, then I can help you. Just ask."
Okay.
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
@Little Cal,
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
Answered here: August 24, 2017 5:22 PM.
Now if you don't understand the contents of the posts, then I can help you. Just ask.
Me: "I have read the posts."
bmiller: "No you haven't."
Um, yes, I have;
Since you still have provided no evidence that you did, I have to conclude that you aren't telling the truth. Especially since you've accused all of your opponents of lying. This is a symptom of projection as I understand.
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.
Now that we both have our amateur psychological analysis expressed, why don't you proceed to show me I'm wrong about you lying. You can start to do that by breifly summarizing what you think is specifically wrong with the responses I posted.
In case you forgot 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
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
Me: "What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? Try to be precise, specific, and concise."
bmiller: Answered here: August 24, 2017 5:22 PM. [<--this comment lists 5 other posts that supposedly answer the incredibly simple question above.] Now if you don't understand the contents of the posts, then I can help you. Just ask."
I have. You keep dodging by listing posts that have nothing to do with refuting the criticisms of the First Way. It's clear by your responses that moral failings (hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism) have made you too stupid to see how obvious your hand-waving is.
bmiller: "Now if you don't understand the contents of the posts, then I can help you. Just ask."
I keep on asking. You keep running away, instead of facing how your obvious hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism make your movements as obvious as a rat in a maze.
Why won't you answer this question:
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
The answer is obvious to the rest of us (you don't understand the criticisms of the First Way, and your pride prevents you from accepting the extent to which your imagined skills are revealed as stupidity when examined with some rigor). You are the only one who fails to see how stupid you are, because your hypocrisy, dishonesty, and narcissism have imprisoned you in a cage of stupidity that you seem unwilling to escape.
Just answer the question:
What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? / Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
bmiller: "Since you still have provided no evidence that you did, I have to conclude that you aren't telling the truth. Especially since you've accused all of your opponents of lying. This is a symptom of projection as I understand." / Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. / "Now that we both have our amateur psychological analysis expressed, why don't you proceed to show me I'm wrong about you lying. You can start to do that by breifly summarizing what you think is specifically wrong with the responses I posted."
Ha.
This is not a he said / she said disagreement. You were challenged upthread to provide an example of my dishonesty, and you have yet to cite me being dishonest.
You, on the other hand, are dishonest in practically everything you write.
Starting with accusing me of projecting my dishonesty onto you -- an accusation easily falsified by your inability to cite me actually being dishonest.
You are a morally repugnant character, and your moral failings make you stupider.
We can all learn that much from your rantings.
Here's what I mean by dishonesty:
bmiller links to a bunch of posts that he misrepresents as refuting the criticisms of the First Way offered here.
I look at the first link. It does not refute any criticism of the First Way offered here.
I ask, "What criticism of the First Way does your comment at March 18, 2017 10:47 AM address, and how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? Try to be precise, specific, and concise."
bmiller responds by providing the same list of links again, and then states, "Now if you don't understand the contents of the posts, then I can help you. Just ask."
After that, I repeat the question (or bmiller cites my question) 9 more time.
After being asked 10 times, bmiller never does what he said he would do --answer my simple question -- if I just ask.
bmiller is entirely dishonest.
Typical here (an exchange where Stardusty has to correct the science ignorance of the apologists):
Stevek: "Litmus paper changes colors without changing physical position."
Stardusty: "--Wrong. Molecules move into the fibers of the paper. Photons move to the paper and then to your eye.
Stevek: "A block of steel rusts without moving to some new location."
Stardusty: "--Wrong. Oxygen atoms move to join iron atoms in the steel. The surface physically moves with respect to the internal structure as it transitions from smooth steel to rough rust."
Stevek: "Your body heats up without moving across the room."
Stardusty: "--Heat is motion, don't you know that?"
After so many of these exchanges, bmiller is made so stupid by his dishonesty that he writes:
bmiller (to Stardusty): "You don't seem to have any grounding in the physical sciences at all."
bmiller is entirely dishonest. Which helps the extent of his stupidity.
@Little Cal,
Little Cal points out what he thinks are problems with the First Way:
"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"
August 04, 2017 6:00 AM
Item 1 on his list:
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM:
." 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)."
Item 1 on my list (repeated in items 2 and 3):
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM
"[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."
Little Cal said:
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.
It's simply unbelievable to witness someone challenge an opponent to respond to some erroneous criticism and then for them to forget or misunderstand their own criticism when confronted with a direct response. Stop being dishonest little projector.
What I am about to say has been said before many times in this thread.
The First Way establishes that for observed existing material objects to be in motion requires an Unmoved Mover. Being the Unmoved Mover is one description of God, but is not exhaustive of all His attributes. That is why this particular criticism is irrelevant in the first place (as are most of the others).
The First Way does not establish that the Unmoved Mover does anything but cause the motion of all material objects, so complaints the Unmoved Mover is thinking or not simply do not apply to this argument.
@Little Cal,
Cal: "I have read the posts."
bmiller: "No you haven't."
Cal:Um, yes, I have;
Since you still have provided no evidence that you did, I have to conclude that you aren't telling the truth. Especially since you've accused all of your opponents of lying. This is a symptom of projection as I understand.
Cal:"You were challenged upthread to provide an example of my dishonesty, and you have yet to cite me being dishonest.
I just did. Prove me wrong. Show me evidence you read them. Maybe now you will actually read the posts.
@Cal,
Regarding your post of August 30, 2017 12:19 PM.
Excellent example of Strawdusty's equivocation and your inability to understand what SteveK was referring to. Thank you for giving me another example.
The only people who should be embarrassed by those quotes are Dusty and Cal. Dusty for 'correcting' me about something I never claimed. Oops. Cal for thinking it demonstrates Dusty's superior intellect. Nope.
bmiller: "Item 1 on my list (repeated in items 2 and 3): / March 18, 2017 10:47 AM "[10] It is to be noted, however, that Plato, who held that every mover is moved... 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: "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: "Because they are irrelevant to the problems pointed out in the First Way. /Repeating mistakes doesn't fix the mistake; it just demonstrates stupidity."
The best I can now guess is that you think you are addressing a criticism regarding the First Way revolving around soundness -- the criticism being that an unmoved mover is incoherent -- as you now (finally) indicate that your March 18, 2017 10:47 AM comment is to be understood as responding to Stardusty's comment on March 18, 2017 10:47 AM.
Do you think that a fallacious response is a relevant criticism?
Do you understand that -- Because so-and-so believed this, therefore it is so -- is a fallacy?
As I have requested, and am still waiting for (unless you think your comments are somehow not clear examples that you are easily duped by fallacious reasoning), "... how do you think that comment refutes that criticism? Try to be precise, specific, and concise."
To help you out here, all you have done in your repetitive quotations is assert what others have believed, NOT what is, in fact, correct in reality. They are (hence, fallacy) different things. And as I have indicated, a fallacious response can be safely ignored, because it is (by definition) irrelevant to the point being addressed.
How do you think that your comments actually refute the criticism regarding motion not moving? Use your own words. Show us why you think what you do. Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
Cal
"Do you think that a fallacious response is a relevant criticism?
Do you understand that -- Because so-and-so believed this, therefore it is so -- is a fallacy? "
Every one of your criticisms is based on this fallacy. Every. One.
a) Because so-and-so believes Aquinas meant X rather than Y
b) Because so-and-so believes that physics can disprove the FW
c) Because so-and-so believes the FW is necessarily about origins
d) Because so-and-so believes that demolished refineries cause train wheels to move today
e) Because so-and-so believes there is a contradiction in the argument
f) Because so-and-so believes the FW isn't about God
g) Because so-and-so believes that macro level observation are illusions
h) Because so-and-so believes there is a problem with 2a-2f
i) Because so-and-so believes that approximations are necessarily wrong/untrue
j) Because so-and-so believes that NO object has the property of location
...and more!
stevek: "Every one of your criticisms is based on this fallacy. Every. One."
???
You and/or Dusty are the people who believe your criticisms are relevant. You are the so-and-so's
@Little Cal,
The best I can now guess is that you think you are addressing a criticism regarding the First Way revolving around soundness -- the criticism being that an unmoved mover is incoherent -- as you now (finally) indicate that your March 18, 2017 10:47 AM comment is to be understood as responding to Stardusty's comment on March 18, 2017 10:47 AM.
Now I'm actually feeling sorry for you. You provide a list of criticisms, I respond and you apparently don't even know what the first item on your list was. I originally thought that you were just messing with me. But now it appears that you really don't know what's going on. I thought listing all the relevant posts August 24, 2017 5:22 PM would give even the most clueless all they needed, but alas. I'm sorry that I assumed too much of you.
Do you think that a fallacious response is a relevant criticism?
Strawdusty's criticism was irrelevant as I demonstrated. In fact it was not only irrelevant, it was ignorant since the link to the quote was provided on the very comment on the post. However, if the topic had been The Intellect of God then the criticism would have been relevant but fallacious.
However, you claimed the quote in the post was irrelevant to Strawdusty's "criticism". That is false.
Cal:"You were challenged upthread to provide an example of my dishonesty, and you have yet to cite me being dishonest.
Here is another example. Just as your claim to have read all of the responses I listed was. I can list more, but I'd rather debate the content of posts related to the debate rather than discuss your personality issues.
Do you understand that -- Because so-and-so believed this, therefore it is so -- is a fallacy?
Well, I'm not like you who *now* believes that location is not a property of an object just because Strawdusty says so. Is SteveK right? Do you really have such a crush on him that you are now a *Science Denier*? Regardless, no one made that kind of argument other than what you are doing now wrt Strawdusty's post.
To help you out here, all you have done in your repetitive quotations is assert what others have believed,
Once again proof you did not read the posts, projector Little Cal.
BTW, I agree with SteveK regarding your "criticisms". Since you are a projector, and incapable of mounting an actual argument, all you can do is point to what your *crush* has told you, so you accuse your opponents of doing what you in fact are doing.
Now I will make a "prediction". Little Cal will continue to insult and refuse to defend and debate Strawdusty's irrelevant and ultimately fallacious "criticism". Any bets?
First, housekeepgin:
bmiller: "Now I'm actually feeling sorry for you. You provide a list of criticisms, I respond... I assumed too much of you."
If you don't know how to cite so as to make your thinking clear, and when your comments are clearly fallacious, you will continue to fail to adequately communicate your "thinking". This is a common problem for narcissists -- they struggle to imagine that others do not share their own, private thoughts, nor think as they do. This disorganization makes you stupider.
bmiller: "Strawdusty's criticism was irrelevant as I demonstrated."
No. You made a fallacious response -- that a criticism of Aquinas's argument (that an unmoved mover is incoherent) is somehow not incoherent because Aquinas has declared that it is not incoherent. This is straightforward fallacious reasoning. You have made no relevant response to the criticism, just shown that you are susceptible to fallacious thinking.
bmiller: "However, you claimed the quote in the post was irrelevant to Strawdusty's "criticism". That is false."
How are fallacies relevant if they cannot overturn the point they are attempting to refute?
bmiller: "Here is another example. Just as your claim to have read all of the responses I listed was. I can list more, but I'd rather debate the content of posts related to the debate rather than discuss your personality issues."
You confuse the fact that you write amateurishly and are prone to fallacious thinking with my not reading what has been written. Your narcissism has led you to the false conclusion that I have not read this entire thread (something that I'm not proud of, really), and to have made the patently stupid assertion that I have not, when my regular commenting throughout indicates that I have.
Your false accusation is another testament to your dishonesty, and shows that your suggestion that I am projecting my dishonesty onto you is just another example of your pathological thinking, which I think is a product of your moral failings.
bmiller: "Well, I'm not like you who *now* believes that location is not a property of an object just because Strawdusty says so. Is SteveK right? Do you really have such a crush on him that you are now a *Science Denier*?"
bmiller: "Regardless, no one made that kind of argument other than what you are doing now wrt Strawdusty's post."
The above sentence is what I mean by your amateurish and undisciplined writing. You imagine that your demonstrative pronouns above refer to something clear and obvious, when in fact they do not -- good luck to anyone figuring out exactly what "that kind of argument" refers to, or "what you are doing now wrt to Strawdusty's post" means.
I asked you to be precise, concise, and specific for a reason; you consistently fail to be so, and that is why you struggle to think clearly, and more so is why seem so frustrated at not being understood.
@bmiller, your last post was another long-winded whine in which you have, yet again, failed to defend from the obvious conclusion that you think that a fallacy -- that a criticism of Aquinas's argument (that an unmoved mover is incoherent) is somehow not incoherent because Aquinas has declared that it is not incoherent -- is a relevant response to that criticism.
How do you think that your comments actually refute the criticism regarding motion not moving? Use your own words. Show us why you think what you do. Try to be precise, specific, and concise.
I doubt bmiller wants to rehash the past 8 months. You failed to understand it the first time and what has changed since? Nothing.
If an unmoved Mover seems incoherent to you then keep learning. That incoherency is evidence that you need more information. There's more to God than what the FW argument tells you.
stevek: "If an unmoved Mover seems incoherent to you then keep learning."
Sure, I'd love to -- what's an example of an unmoved thing causing a motionless thing to move.
By "keep learning," I think you mean the complete opposite.
stevek: "That incoherency is evidence that you need more information."
Indeed, that is what I have been asking for, and have yet to receive. Like, an example of an unmoved thing causing a motionless thing to move.
Crickets.
stevek: "There's more to God than what the FW argument tells you."
That goes without saying. Which is not a testament to the argument you are supposed to be defending.
Cal Metzger said.. September 01, 2017 10:12 AM.
stevek: "If an unmoved Mover seems incoherent to you then keep learning."
" Sure, I'd love to -- what's an example of an unmoved thing causing a motionless thing to move."
Of course, SteveK will never come up with such an example. Bmiller may well repeat his above vague and pointless quote about Plato and Aristotle. Then there is the question of what precisely is being claimed, is it that "unchanged" means never changing at all, or does it mean that nothing else changed it but it changed itself and is presently changing, or does it mean that nothing else changed it but it has always been changing and is still changing?
Aside from it irrationality of asserting that a thing can impart change without itself undergoing any sort of change, there is the irrationality of calling for an ontological first changer, a sustaining cause for existence, which led me to post the below elsewhere:
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.
Cal
God is the example you're looking for. No crickets here. There's only one example of an unmoved Mover so I cannot show you another.
Chirp, chirp
Dusty
"Then there is the question of what precisely is being claimed, is it that "unchanged" means never changing at all, or does it mean that nothing else changed it but it changed itself and is presently changing, or does it mean that nothing else changed it but it has always been changing and is still changing?"
After reading the text of the argument, and after Legion defined "change" at Cal's request, and after months of back and forth comments - you STILL don't know what it means? I don't think anyone can help you.
@Little Cal,
Now I will make a "prediction". Little Cal will continue to insult and refuse to defend and debate Strawdusty's irrelevant and ultimately fallacious "criticism". Any bets?
Gee I was right. Ho hum.
If you don't know how to cite so as to make your thinking clear, ...This disorganization makes you stupider.
Like I said, I assumed you could read and keep the context straight. I was wrong.
Let me refresh you with the context:
1) You posted a list of erroneus Strawdusty comments August 04, 2017 6:00 AM.
2) Strawdusty posted his longer erroneous list of arguments on August 08, 2017 6:50 AM.
3) I directly quoted him and responded with my list August 08, 2017 8:52 PM. The list was a direct response to both his list and your's (which was merely a subset of his).
Now the list that you cited was the only list of actual arguments that you have referred to AFAIK (assertions are not arguments).
Then you claim an item of my list does not address any arguments against the First Way. What other list did you think the list I posted referred to?
@Little Cal,
How are fallacies relevant if they cannot overturn the point they are attempting to refute?
You are ignorant of different types of fallacies.
Fallacies of irrelevance are called ignoratio elenchi or missing the point. This is the general type of fallacy that you and Strawdusty routinely engage in, such as the genetic fallacy and ad hominem.
For instance, ." For example if this speculated god made a decision to “move” the substances of existence that decision itself was a “movement”. is this type of fallacy because the First Way does not claim the Unmoved Mover makes any decisions at all. If you think it does, post it.
However, the quote from the SCG is relevant to the irrelevant and ignorant criticism of Strawdusty's post. It directly addresses that criticism by drawing a distinction between the movement Aristotle was referring to, that of exiting material objects, and the immaterial (things that are not subject to material restrictions).
@Little Cal,
You confuse the fact that you write amateurishly...
Look Cal it's clear you don't understand what anyone is discussing including Strawdusty and showed us that fact most recently regarding *properties* of an object and *states* of motion. So you're confusing your lack of reading ability with others' lack of writing ability.
.... Your narcissism ...
So you resort to projection.
when my regular commenting throughout indicates that I have.
and dishonesty. Your comments indicate that you only read the first one. I have no reason to believe you especially since you are projecting others as being dishonest. Give me some evidence by engaging the content of the posts and I may change my mind.
@Little Cal,
The above sentence is what I mean by your amateurish and undisciplined writing. You imagine that your demonstrative pronouns above refer to something clear and obvious
The quote of mine you are referring to was in reference to your question which I included for context (and you did not):
Do you understand that -- Because so-and-so believed this, therefore it is so -- is a fallacy?
But since you have comprehension problems, I will go over the point again.
Now, I assume that by your mischaracterization you were claiming I am making an invalid argument from authority. Aquinas is an authority on the First Way, referring to his quote is valid.
However, you accepted the authority of a crank as valid and thereby have become a *Science denier*. Understood so far?
So since Aquinas is a valid authority and Strawdusty is not a valid authority, the only one that has made an invalid argument from authority is you. In fact as far as I can remember you have not made any arguments of your own against the First Way. Although you make plenty of baseless assertions, fling insults and project like crazy.
Me: "How do you think that your comments actually refute the criticism regarding motion not moving? Use your own words. Show us why you think what you do. Try to be precise, specific, and concise."
And finally, we start to get an explanation. Finally.
And it's exactly as sad as I thought it was.
bmiller: "Now, I assume that by your mischaracterization you were claiming I am making an invalid argument from authority. Aquinas is an authority on the First Way, referring to his quote is valid."
Nope. You don't understand the fallacy of argument from authority. By your thinking, no one can be wrong about anything they think, because they are the authority on what they think.
But arguments aren't evaluated by whether or not their proponents or authors say they believe them; they're evaluated by the rules of good argument. And those rules include soundness. You fail to understand this, which makes you seem (after all this) profoundly, profoundly stupid.
bmiller: "However, you accepted the authority of a crank as valid and thereby have become a *Science denier*. Understood so far?"
Nope. You seem to think that because I accepted one definition based on a set of criteria (anything measurable is a property), and subsequently agreed that there are problems regarding this definition related to the point being discussed and that I should make those delineations more clear, that I am science denier. This is an opposite of science, which accepts refinement, and moves on. Your mischaracterization makes you seem quite stupid.
bmilelr: "So since Aquinas is a valid authority and Strawdusty is not a valid authority..."
The only authority regarding reality, and arguments that try to explain reality, is reality. You fail to understand the basic tenet of argument, and that foundation of science. Yes, your actual words reveal (surprise!) that your thinking is that profoundly stupid.
bmiller: "...the only one that has made an invalid argument from authority is you."
mkay.
bmiller: "In fact as far as I can remember you have not made any arguments of your own against the First Way. Although you make plenty of baseless assertions, fling insults and project like crazy."
Sigh. I have explained so many times that one doesn't make "arguments" for a bad argument; one criticizes a bad argument, and points out how it fails to abide by the rules of good argument, and can be tossed aside.
You seem incapable of learning. I explain this as a result of your moral deficiencies, to which I'll add, pride.
@Little Cal,
Nope. You don't understand the fallacy of argument from authority. By your thinking, no one can be wrong about anything they think, because they are the authority on what they think.
No, you don't understand the fallacy even though I provided the definition here:August 13, 2017 4:57 PM.
You are dishonest (again) by asserting that I claimed that a quote from *any* authority is other than evidence to support my position.
But in light of our recent exchanges, am I being too demanding and critical? Are you honestly this way? If so, I apoligize for the harsh tone.
Nope. You seem to think that because I accepted one definition based on a set of criteria (anything measurable is a property), and subsequently agreed that there are problems regarding this definition related to the point being discussed and that I should make those delineations more clear, that I am science denier. This is an opposite of science, which accepts refinement, and moves on. Your mischaracterization makes you seem quite stupid.
OK, I amend my accusation. You are not only a *science denier*, but a *dishonest science denier*. You'll be telling me dinosaurs lived with humans next!
The only authority regarding reality, and arguments that try to explain reality, is reality. You fail to understand the basic tenet of argument, and that foundation of science. Yes, your actual words reveal (surprise!) that your thinking is that profoundly stupid.
This explains a lot. You apparently don't read books since they are written by people who have studied certain things and thereby have acquired an expertise and have become authorities. You let *reality* explain *reality* to you. You really must be stupid to have spent money on college just to have them assign you to read books by *authorities* to find out about *reality*. This is definitely going into my archives.
Sigh. I have explained so many times that one doesn't make "arguments" for a bad argument; one criticizes a bad argument, and points out how it fails to abide by the rules of good argument, and can be tossed aside.
Translation: I don't know what the heck the entire discussion is about. This is like 10x over my head and the best I can do is avoid making myself look any more ridiculous than I already have. Maybe if invent phrases like "rules of good argument" and imaginary rules like "one doesn't make "arguments" for a bad argument; one criticizes a bad argument,"that I can equivocate on later that will buy me enough time till my obnoxiousness repels them enough to give up.
So first, I will never give up.
Second, I will be happy to explain the First Way to you the best as I understand it without animosity, but if you want me to explain it to you with animosity, then so be it.
Third, if you have no interest in the topic and merely want to hang around and exchange insults, then bring it on. If the objective is sarcasm, game on!
@Strawdusty,
Welcome back *Science Denier*.
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM:
." 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)."
Once again:
1) Your argument is irrelevant to the First Way. The First Way only establishes the existence of the Unmoved Mover. It is silent on whether the Unmoved Mover makes decisions or not. Like most of your posts, this one misses the point.
2) Your argument was ignorant. Meaning that you were unaware that your contention had already been addressed by the author of the First Way 800 years ago.
3) Your argument was inexcusably ignorant. The first comment in this post linked to the section of the SCG in which the reasoning of the First Way was explained.
Cal claims that the quote from Aquinas from the SCG is an invalid appeal to authority.
1) The quote explains the distinction of the change of potency to act characteristic of existing material things to that of the intellect and will of the Unmoved Mover. It is once again irrelevant *who* makes the argument so it misses the point to focus on the author rather than the argument
2) It is hilarious to witness someone claiming that quoting the author of the First Way in the process of explaining the First Way is an invalid appeal to authority.
Bmiller may well repeat his above vague and pointless quote about Plato and Aristotle.
Once again you display your ignorance. You choose to criticize things you have no knowledge of and then complain you don't understand when shown what the author meant. On top of that, you choose to stay ignorant by refusing to read the relevant material that would cure your ignorance.
When things don’t change then things don’t change.....
Thus the Thomistic explanation becomes that when things don’t change an unchanged changer is continuously changing them to not change.
That series of sentences displays 1) a profound ignorance of what you're attempting to criticize 2) and so a mischaracterization of Thomism 3) so yet another irrelevant criticism of the First Way 4) a profound ignorance of science including conservation laws 5) a profound lack of reasoning ability 6) refusal to acknowledge that all of your confused points have been addressed, while you have remained silent in return.
As was pointed out here:
August 09, 2017 8:29 AM
But first here:
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
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.
@SteveK,
After reading the text of the argument, and after Legion defined "change" at Cal's request, and after months of back and forth comments - you STILL don't know what it means? I don't think anyone can help you.
Right.
Most people would be embarrassed by their lack of reading comprehension, but I guess some like to show it off.
bmiller said...
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM:
." 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)."
" Once again:
1) Your argument is irrelevant to the First Way. The First Way only establishes the existence of the Unmoved Mover. It is silent on whether the Unmoved Mover makes decisions or not. "
--Whack-a-mole trollistic blather. I anticipated and addressed this objection. You are either too stupid to read the words from the very passage you quoted or simply dishonest, perhaps both.
Dishonest is a person of science who says macro-level observations are an illusion
Dishonest is a person of science who says demolished refineries cause train wheels to move
Dishonest is a person of science who says no object has the property of location
Dusty is that dishonest person of science
SteveK said.. September 03, 2017 10:44 AM.
" Dishonest is a person of science who says macro-level observations are an illusion"
--They are macro level approximations. To the extent that they converge on reality we consider those to be valid approximations.
What is yellow? Is it an illusion? There is no qualitative difference between electromagnetic radiation of different wavelengths. Further one will perceive a shade of yellow by observing spectrally pure radiation, that is monochromatic radiation of a particular wavelength. However, one will perceive the same shade of yellow if a broad spectrum of red and green light is observed. So we see the same thing even though the radiation wavelenghts received are very different.
Thus, in that sense, yellow is an illusion. Yet it is a real experience that does in fact correlate with certain real differences in received radiation, so in that sense yellow is a valid approximation.
" Dishonest is a person of science who says demolished refineries cause train wheels to move"
--The activities in the refinery are part of a vastly complex temporal causal series, an "accidental" series, as is every causal series. There is no such thing as an "essential" causal series. Simultaneity of cause and effect do not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes thought of as the infinitesimal, inside which there can be no series.
" Dishonest is a person of science who says no object has the property of location"
--An object does not "know" its own location in isolation. An object does have a particular mass/energy independent of anything else. Location is a property of a system of which the object is part, and location is associated with an object at the system level.
" Dusty is that dishonest person of science"
--If you had taken physics for engineers and calculus for engineers as all engineering students of all engineering specialties must take then you would know all of my above points, but you don't, so I conclude you didn't and you are therefore a liar regarding your claim of education.
@Strawdusty,
--They are macro level approximations. To the extent that they converge on reality we consider those to be valid approximations.
A macro bullet at macro uniform velocity aimed at your head will make you macro-ly perfectly dead. No approximation necessary.
You are Woo-fully deluded.
" Dishonest is a person of science who says demolished refineries cause train wheels to move"
--The activities in the refinery are part of a vastly complex temporal causal series, an "accidental" series, as is every causal series. There is no such thing as an "essential" causal series. Simultaneity of cause and effect do not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes thought of as the infinitesimal, inside which there can be no series.
No only don't you know what you're talking about regarding accidental and essentially ordered series, you insist that non existent objects cause existent objects to change. That is not science. And BTW, in modern calculus classes (and by that I mean in your lifetime) derivatives are not taught using the concept of the "infinitesimal". Another demonstration of your ignorance of math and science to go along with your ignorance of philosophy.
" Dishonest is a person of science who says no object has the property of location"
--An object does not "know" its own location in isolation. An object does have a particular mass/energy independent of anything else. Location is a property of a system of which the object is part, and location is associated with an object at the system level.
This is gibberish and not simply unrelated thoughts following no particular order, but in fact contradictory gibberish.
You claim that location is not a property of an object contrary modern physics. By contrast you claim that "An object does have a particular mass/energy independent of anything else".
August 26, 2017 9:41 PM
Kinetic energy is ½mv². m refers to the mass of an object and v refers to the velocity of the object. If there is no such thing as the velocity of the object (uniform or otherwise), then it cannot be said an object has kinetic energy.
Is SteveK right that you are dishonest? I think you are just a *Science Denier*. You may just as well be arguing for a flat earth.
--If you had taken physics for engineers and calculus for engineers as all engineering students of all engineering specialties must take then you would know all of my above points,
How the heck would you know what goes on in a calculus course. First semester calculus students learn to grasp the concept of instanteous velocity by studying limit theory and derivatives. People who have actually taken calculus know you don't know what you're talking about. Talk about dishonest.
@Strawdusty,
1) Your argument is irrelevant to the First Way. The First Way only establishes the existence of the Unmoved Mover. It is silent on whether the Unmoved Mover makes decisions or not. "
--Whack-a-mole trollistic blather. I anticipated and addressed this objection. You are either too stupid to read the words from the very passage you quoted or simply dishonest, perhaps both.
I read your quote and understand it. It is an inexcusably ignorant argument. The First Way starts with the premise that we perceive existing material objects in motion. The author of the First Way explained the sense of motion discussed in the First Way. It wasn't the intellectual operation of the Unmoved Mover, nor any other sense. The fact that you say you "anticipated and addressed this objection" is another example of being inexcusably ignorant.
Here is the quote once again from the SCG:
March 18, 2017 10:47 AM
"[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."
That you accuse me of "Whack-a-mole trollistic blather" (whatever that is) indicates that you are now being dishonest in addition to being inexcusably ignorant.
bmiller: “No, you don't understand the fallacy even though I provided the definition here:August 13, 2017 4:57 PM. / You are dishonest (again) by asserting that I claimed that a quote from *any* authority is other than evidence to support my position.”
Ha. How is Aquinas stating that he doesn’t think that an unmoved thing causing a motionless thing to move is incoherent because, well, Aquinas doesn’t think so — how is that evidence? It is evidence that you don’t recognize or understand a fallacy, but other than that you’ve presented quite the head scratcher.
I’ll say it again. You tried to support your position by using a known fallacy — the argument from authority — because you mistakenly think that what someone else thinks about an argument’s validity is how one determines if an argument is a good or bad argument.
But the opinion of others (Aquinas, Plato, Aristotle, whoever) is NOT what determines if an argument is good or bad; the rules of good argument determine that. And the rules of good argument include soundness, which is not arbitrated by a person — it is arbitrated by a reality.
Your inclusion in this comment thread of a quote not once (but 3 times!), and your continued insistence that that quote from Aquinas, mentioning a conflict between Plato and Aristotle, and declaring that there was no conflict, and that his argument is therefore… what? sound? — is another clear indication that you fail to understand argument, fallacies, and reality.
But it’s worse than that; you will continue to fail to recognize things like the above AND learn from them, because your moral failings (narcissism, pride, dishonesty, and hypocrisy) prevent your mind from working the way that smart minds work. You are stuck, like a record with scratch, incapable of developing your acumen or understanding, a prisoner of your moral failings.
bmiller: “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.”
Okay, if the above think that First Way is a good argument, then they don’t understand what Aquinas’s First Way actually says, or the rules of good argument, or both. If they state that the First Way is a good argument, then that is all the evidence required to demonstrate that they lack expertise to determine either what the First Way plainly says, what the rules of argument are, or both.
It’s that simple. You are a fool, still apparently arguing for a known fallacy (argument from authority), rather than employing the rules of good argument, and evaluating the First Way based on those.
bmiller: “OK, I amend my accusation. You are not only a *science denier*, but a *dishonest science denier*. You'll be telling me dinosaurs lived with humans next!”
Hilarious coming from someone who believes that a virgin gave birth, that a snake talked, that a dead man came back to life after three days and flew up into the firmament, etc. Projection reveals the grotesque contortions of your mind.
bmiller: “This explains a lot. You apparently don't read books since they are written by people who have studied certain things and thereby have acquired an expertise and have become authorities. You let *reality* explain *reality* to you. You really must be stupid to have spent money on college just to have them assign you to read books by *authorities* to find out about *reality*. This is definitely going into my archives.”
Authorities speak on behalf of reality only to the extent that what they know is corroborated by reality. A physicist doesn’t know things because he states them; a physicist knows things because what he knows is verified objectively. You are so stupid you confuse this simple distinction regarding uncorroborated authority with authorities whose expertise is reliably and verifiably corroborated. And your are so vile that you try to misrepresent my straightforward position into something resembling your own misconceptions.
bmiller: “Translation: I don't know what the heck the entire discussion is about. This is like 10x over my head and the best I can do is avoid making myself look any more ridiculous than I already have. Maybe if invent phrases like "rules of good argument" and imaginary rules like "one doesn't make "arguments" for a bad argument; one criticizes a bad argument,"that I can equivocate on later that will buy me enough time till my obnoxiousness repels them enough to give up.
There are rules of argument. Agree, or disagree.
If you agree, then your comment above is contradicted by your agreement that there are rules of argument.
If you disagree, then you are not arguing here for anything, because there can be no arguing FOR something if there are no rules by which one could argue.
Your moral failings present you as you are — a hypocritical, dishonest, narcissistic, proud, and profoundly stupid person, whose stupidity is easy to recognize and presents in almost everything he writes.
Sad.
bmiller: “So first, I will never give up.”
I, too, have come to believe that your moral failings make you so stupid that you will forever fail to learn. You might someday become a better person, but changing your moral character is beyond my powers.
bmiller: “Second, I will be happy to explain the First Way to you the best as I understand it without animosity, but if you want me to explain it to you with animosity, then so be it.”
You could try. But your past comments present me with very little hope you can do so.
bmiller: “Third, if you have no interest in the topic and merely want to hang around and exchange insults, then bring it on. If the objective is sarcasm, game on!”
I am losing interest in observing you repeat your pathological thinking; my interest is in better understanding things so that I may be able to find ways to fix them. But at some point I will come to recognize that my conversation with you, pretending that we are on an equal level, could be seen as ugly and shabby on my part as the flaws I decry in your character, and the stupidity they engender.
@Little Cal,
I’ll say it again. You tried to support your position by using a known fallacy — the argument from authority — because you mistakenly think that what someone else thinks about an argument’s validity is how one determines if an argument is a good or bad argument.
You are not only inexcusably ignorant, but now demonstrating that you are plainly stupid as well as dishonest. I never made any claim "that what someone else thinks about an argument’s validity is how one determines if an argument is a good or bad argument."
Here is what I posted September 02, 2017 1:31 PM
1) The quote explains the distinction of the change of potency to act characteristic of existing material things to that of the intellect and will of the Unmoved Mover. It is once again irrelevant *who* makes the argument so it misses the point to focus on the author rather than the argument
2) It is hilarious to witness someone claiming that quoting the author of the First Way in the process of explaining the First Way is an invalid appeal to authority.
Your original complaint was that the quote was irrelevant. I pointed out that was relevant due to it being from the author of the First Way and that it specifically addressed the sense in which the First Way used the term "motion". There is no doubt about what the author meant. It is bizarre for you to insist this constitutes some sort of argument from authority on my part.
You are too clueless to actually interact with the content of the quote and tell me why you think it is a "bad argument". Instead you merely assert it is wrong. Then you claim that your opponent is not following "the rules of good argument".
You project not only your own moral failings on others but also your own fallacious reasoning.
@Little Cal,
You are certainly a *Science Denier*. You have been shown that science considers location a property of an object. It is clear you lack any scientific background so it may have been excusable that you didn't know that fact. But now you know it and deny it. So much for your dishonest claim that you base your view of reality on science.
You claimed that the only authority regarding *reality* is *reality*.
September 01, 2017 4:45 PM
The only authority regarding reality, and arguments that try to explain reality, is reality.
Here you acknowledge that you accept other authorities.
September 04, 2017 9:18 AM
You are so stupid you confuse this simple distinction regarding uncorroborated authority with authorities whose expertise is reliably and verifiably corroborated.
I think you are being dishonest. Again.
There are rules of argument. Agree, or disagree.
Yes, there are such rules. But you don't apparently don't know what they are since almost all of your *arguments* are mere assertions or fallacies of relevance when you aren't inventing your own rules.
@Little Cal,
I am losing interest in observing you repeat your pathological thinking;
It's called rational argumentation. That you consider rational argumentation "pathological thinking" tells me a lot.
my interest is in better understanding things so that I may be able to find ways to fix them.
It seems to me that you either try not to understand your opponents' positions, cannot understand them, or understand them and act like you don't. In any case, displaying obnoxious childish behavior won't fix anything unless it is your goal to diminish your credibility further. If that is even possible.
Observed reality demonstrates that the FW is correct. The science deniers will argue that things change/move today because things that no longer exist are actively doing all the work. The ghost of some ancient object is the puppet master currently moving the train down the track, causing it to stop at each station and causing it to resume toward the next station. The ghost of objects past are actively causing physical objects to type comments on computers today.
You won't find this "ghost theory" taught in any science class, nor will you find it in any peer reviewed article. There's a reason for that. The science deniers should take note of this.
@SteveK
Not only do they think ghosts cause trains to run, but entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some physically measurable force to your golf swing.
From https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html
July 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM
Strawdusty:
"The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
Me:
"If that is so, then please give me the physically quantified amount of force physics claims is being supplied by each of them during the motion of that particular amount.
Perhaps one could attribute some portion of the force to a particular heartbeat of the man since that is part of the activity of the existing form of the man. But the the previous deceased generations of male parents do not exist as material entities and so cannot affect material things. "Dead men tell no tales" I've heard.
Non existent things cannot cause change."
July 22, 2017 at 3:46 PM
Me:
""But tell me the ratio of force each of your ancestors contribute to your golf swing?""
Strawdusty:
"--Is fertilization exothermic or endothermic? I really don't know, what difference does it make relevant to how the First Way is erroneous on the modern science of motion and conservation of matter/energy?"
They're not just science deniers. They seem to be in sort of weird cult.
Criticisms that are founded upon an anti-scientific, anti-reality "ghost theory" are not valid criticisms. Because they are not valid criticisms they do no damage to the argument.
bmiller said... September 04, 2017 6:40 PM
" entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some physically measurable force to your golf swing."
--Liar. I never said the force was physically measurable. Every causal series is "accidental". A cause is instrumental to the effect only in the senses that it is part of a temporal causal series or that the the cause is simultaneous with the effect in the limit as t goes to zero.
A cause may be too small in force to be physically measurable.
LOL!
Dusty chooses to focus on the term "measurable" rather than face his anti-scientific belief that a ghost is actively causing motion to occur
Go peddle your nonsense somewhere else.
Time with tell, but Dusty may have jumped the shark in Cal's eyes. The girl crush might be over.
@Strawdusty,
--Liar. I never said the force was physically measurable.
...A cause may be too small in force to be physically measurable.
You said:
"The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man "
So what measurement do you use for the force delivered by non-existent beings...*The Ghost Newton*? After all you claimed it was moved "some particular amount". Imaginary forces are not measurable. Real forces can be measured.
And BTW, you are projecting.
@SteveK,
The girl crush might be over.
I doubt it. I think the "Cult of Ghostly Forces" would frown on it. :-)
Sorry above should have been.
You said:
"The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
Missed a tag.
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
--Liar. I never said the force was physically measurable.
...A cause may be too small in force to be physically measurable.
You said:
"The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man "
--No statement that the force is physically measurable.
" So what measurement do you use for the force delivered by non-existent beings"
--It is not measurable and I did not say it was but you said I said so which makes you a liar.
" Real forces can be measured."
--Not necessarily.
" And BTW, you are projecting."
--In the sense that I am projecting true words onto this blog regarding your lies, yes.
Let's see. There's no evidence of a causal force and no evidence of the ghost. Other than that, Dusty's explanation is the bestest scientific explanation ever.
Cal: "Authorities speak on behalf of reality only to the extent that what they know is corroborated by reality. A physicist doesn’t know things because he states them; a physicist knows things because what he knows is verified objectively."
Dusty fails to live up to this standard. As far as this subject is concerned Dusty doesn't speak on behalf of reality nor does he speak about things that are verified objectively.
@Strawdusty,
"The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man
--No statement that the force is physically measurable.
More dishonesty. You ignored that I pointed out you claimed it was moving "some particular amount".
And also didn't quote my correction of September 05, 2017 7:39 PM. Where I completed what you had posted.
"The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
You asserted that a deceased relavitive is moving a stick a "particular amount". In the English language a "particular amount" refers to a quanitity (in this case of force) that is distinguishable from other quantities (of force). If a quantity of force is not measurable, then it is not distiguishable from no force at all.
You were asked multiple times since July 19th what "particular amount" of force deceased relatives contribute to living men moving sticks.
"If that is so, then please give me the physically quantified amount of force physics claims is being supplied by each of them during the motion of that particular amount.
Never once did you claim it was not "physically measurable" when you were asked directly multiple times. Of course is a hilarious defense now. Super double-secret-probation undetectable forces from beyond the grave make sticks move.
And yes, you are projecting again by accusing me of being dishonest. Along with dodging questions and doubling down on stupid statements.
But go on. This it's really entertaining to hear your stories from the *Ghost Force Cult*.
Me: “I’ll say it again. You tried to support your position by using a known fallacy — the argument from authority — because you mistakenly think that what someone else thinks about an argument’s validity is how one determines if an argument is a good or bad argument.”
bmiller: “You are not only inexcusably ignorant, but now demonstrating that you are plainly stupid as well as dishonest.”
Um, at this point it seems like you don’t even understand what the words above mean.
bmiller: “I never made any claim "that what someone else thinks about an argument’s validity is how one determines if an argument is a good or bad argument.””
Ha. Yes you did, you stupid liar. This is you:
bmiller: ““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.”
That’s you, insinuating still that the opinions of others above (not just in the examples I mentioned earlier) are to be privileged regarding an argument about reality.
So, on the one hand you cry about being misrepresented (oh, booh hoo, I didn’t try and say that other’s opinions, ahem, expertise!, should be privileged when evaluating an argument about reality), and on the other hand, you represent that others opinions, ahem, expertise! about an argument are why the First Way is somehow a good argument.
You are just the saddest kind of moral character — a hypocritical, dishonest, narcissist, whose pride instigates this unending litany of flailing attempts at demonstrating that you are somehow not really as pathetic as you persistently appear. And that is why you appear not just shabby, but so unrelently stupid.
bmiller: “Here is what I posted September 02, 2017 1:31 PM / 1) The quote explains the distinction of the change of potency to act characteristic of existing material things to that of the intellect and will of the Unmoved Mover. It is once again irrelevant *who* makes the argument so it misses the point to focus on the author rather than the argument”
Ha. Word salad. I can’t believe anyone would want to dredge up a train wreck of “thinking” like that. All you’ve done is reveal how the stupid are fooled by deepities, revealing that to stunted minds like yours the complex but true is as bewildering as gibberish (like the above) that pertains to nothing. You reveal yourself, and the portrait does not flatter.
bmiller: “2) It is hilarious to witness someone claiming that quoting the author of the First Way in the process of explaining the First Way is an invalid appeal to authority”
Apparently you think that quoting a proponent of an argument makes that argument somehow valid. Since you’ve made NO meaningful attempt to refute the criticism of the First Way’s obvious failings, but instead lie, bluster, misrepresent, and pretend that confused thinking by those you identify as “experts” is enough, you’ve done little more than demonstrate that moral failings make one stupid, and they are intractable. Thus, your moral failings make you appear so intractably stupid.
bmiller: “Your original complaint was that the quote was irrelevant.”
True. I ignored it because the quote does NOTHING to refute the criticism that the First Way remains apparently unsound regarding motion. That is what it means to be irrelevant.
bmiller: “I pointed out that was relevant due to it being from the author of the First Way and that it specifically addressed the sense in which the First Way used the term "motion”.”
Which is another way of saying that you think that if the First Way uses the term motion in a way that’s unsound then that should somehow make the First Way a good argument. You are so stupid you don’t realize you’re testifying against the silly idea that you are not stupid.
bmiller: “There is no doubt about what the author meant. It is bizarre for you to insist this constitutes some sort of argument from authority on my part.”
This bizarre conclusion caps off beautifully the extent to which your moral failings (hypocrisy, dishonesty, narcissism, and pride) make you not just so unrelentingly stupid, but also so unrelentingly predictable.
@Little Cal,
bmiller: “I never made any claim "that what someone else thinks about an argument’s validity is how one determines if an argument is a good or bad argument.””
Ha. Yes you did, you stupid liar. This is you:
bmiller: ““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.”
That’s you, insinuating still that the opinions of others above (not just in the examples I mentioned earlier) are to be privileged regarding an argument about reality.
You plucked the second quote of mine from the context regarding the subject of who was more qualified to judge the proper intrepretation of what the premises and conclusion the First Way were, not the validity of the argument itself. Strawdusty or Aquinas et al.
The second quote of mine that you selected was with respect to the content of a specific irrelevant argument that Strawdusty put forward. I pointed out that Strawdusty's argument was irrelevant because the sense of motion used in the First Way had already been defined by the author of the First Way in the SCG and in fact, his specific example had been addressed. Thus proving that Strawdusty's argument was irrelvant.
So one disagreement was regarding who was more qualified to explain how to interpret the argument. The other disagreement was about the validity of the argument itself. That you confound these 2 separate disagreements indicates your low reading comprehension.
" And that is why you appear not just shabby, but so unrelently stupid.
And this statement your continued projection.
Perhaps this is all part of the initiation ritual they make you go through to become a member of the Science Denying *Ghost Force Cult*.
@Little Cal,
bmiller: “Here is what I posted September 02, 2017 1:31 PM / 1) The quote explains the distinction of the change of potency to act characteristic of existing material things to that of the intellect and will of the Unmoved Mover. It is once again irrelevant *who* makes the argument so it misses the point to focus on the author rather than the argument”
Ha. Word salad....gibberish (like the above) that pertains to nothing.
1) You miss the point that this quote was in response to the charge I was making an argument from authority. I explained how supplying a counter argument was not an argument from authority regardless of who makes it.
2) You merely assert that counter argument is wrong. You're apparently not equipped to rebut it.
bmiller: “2) It is hilarious to witness someone claiming that quoting the author of the First Way in the process of explaining the First Way is an invalid appeal to authority”
Apparently you think that quoting a proponent of an argument makes that argument somehow valid. ...
No. You are inexcusably ignorant and dishonest. You've been supplied with the definition of the *ad verecundiam fallacy* on August 13, 2017 4:57 PM. There is no excuse for you to continue to make this claim.
bmiller: “Your original complaint was that the quote was irrelevant.”
True. I ignored it because the quote does NOTHING to refute the criticism that the First Way remains apparently unsound regarding motion. That is what it means to be irrelevant.
Well well. You claimed you read all of the posts I listed and now you admit that you ignored this one. More proof of your projection of dishonesty on me.
But your claim that the quote is irrelevant is false. You prove you don't know what an irrelevant argument is even though given the definition of Ignoratio elenchi on September 01, 2017 1:48 PM. Another example of inexcusable ignorance. Is it due to dishonesty or intellectual incapacity?
bmiller: “I pointed out that was relevant due to it being from the author of the First Way and that it specifically addressed the sense in which the First Way used the term "motion”.”
Which is another way of saying that you think that if the First Way uses the term motion in a way that’s unsound then that should somehow make the First Way a good argument. You are so stupid you don’t realize you’re testifying against the silly idea that you are not stupid.
What you just posted there is utter gibberish. Sober up and try again.
This bizarre conclusion caps off beautifully the extent to which your moral failings (hypocrisy, dishonesty, narcissism, and pride) make you not just so unrelentingly stupid, but also so unrelentingly predictable.
Another good example of your projection.
But tell me Little Cal. How do deceased relatives provide you with a particular amount of force to hit golf balls? No one can tell me.
bmiller said...
SP --No statement that the force is physically measurable.
" More dishonesty. You ignored that I pointed out you claimed it was moving "some particular amount"."
--I said a particular amount, not a measurable amount. You said I said a measurable amount when I did not. That makes you a liar.
bmiller: “Your original complaint was that the quote was irrelevant.”
Me: "True. I ignored it because the quote does NOTHING to refute the criticism that the First Way remains apparently unsound regarding motion. That is what it means to be irrelevant."
bmiller: "Well well. You claimed you read all of the posts I listed and now you admit that you ignored this one. More proof of your projection of dishonesty on me."
???????
It does remain interesting to me how reliably my theory that your dishonesty makes you stupider is verified. So stupid that you apparently don't know what the very common word "ignore means.
Ignore
: to refuse to take notice of
: to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungrounded
You are apparently so stupid (made stupider by your dishonesty and narcissism) that you think that "ignore" means "miss" or "not read." Not knowing the meaning of a common word is the best evidence yet of how moral failings can make one remarkably stupid -- far stupider than one should be based on bare mental acuity alone.
Hence, bmiller's dishonesty and narcissism make him stupider.
And, of course, more vile.
And his pride will prevent him from accepting the objective demonstration and explanation of how his moral failings make him stupider (as they have above), and he will try to retort in kind rather than modify his behavior (because he is a narcissist), demonstrating that poor moral character not only makes one vile, but also traps minds in a wall of stupidity that they cannot escape.
@Strawdusty,
--I said a particular amount, not a measurable amount. You said I said a measurable amount when I did not. That makes you a liar.
You've just accused me of misquoting you. That is false. I quoted you word for word.
You have never claimed that this "particular amount" was "not a measurable amount" for over a month until your recent dissembling.
In fact you told us that you considered that this force could be found in "fertilization".
Me:
""But tell me the ratio of force each of your ancestors contribute to your golf swing?""
Strawdusty:
"--Is fertilization exothermic or endothermic?
During fertilization, An explosion of tiny sparks erupts from the egg at the exact moment of conception. Certainly a release of energy that people have detected.
But tell me how you know ancient deceased relatives supply a particular amount of force if no one can measure or presumably detect that force.
Oh, and dissembling is a form of lying, so again you are projecting.
@Stardusty, I am beginning to have some misgivings about our engagement here, in that it does occur to me that we are dealing with genuine pathology, and not just your garden variety moral turpitude and ignorance.
The "discussion" here is starting to remind me of the link below, where a misguided desire to remedy psychosis with a kind of confrontational rationality was revealed to be both doomed and misguided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Christs_of_Ypsilanti
>> "You said I said a measurable amount when I did not. That makes you a liar."
You said a deceased person can cause motion. That makes you delusional. I think bmiller is in better shape as he can correct his errors. You need professional help.
And Cal continues to crush on delusional Dusty. Your credibility is shot.
@SteveK,
You said a deceased person can cause motion. That makes you delusional.
Not only that, but he apparently doesn't even respect his deceased male ancestors. He claims they all apply a particular amount of force to his golf swing, but they are so puny that their combined force isn't even measurable.
If I was making stuff up, I'd brag about how powerful my deceased male ancestors were, not how puny.
In any event, Strawdusty got caught up in the logical absurdity of his position, so as you note, instead of making a course correction, he doubled down now with the claim that the "particular amount" of force deceased ancestors supply is too small to be measurable after more than a month of me repeatedly asking for the "particular amount".
The posts where I orginally asked him for this were on Feser's blog, but I included them in my list of unanswered refutations of their irrelevant "arguments".
Posted numerous times on this thread:
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html
July 20, 2017 at 9:26 PM On the list
July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM On the list
July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM On the list
So the *I really meant a teeny tiny force too small to notice* excuse is way more lame than *the dog ate my homework* excuse. But I have to admit, it's way more fun to ridicule.☺
@Little Cal,
Not knowing the meaning of a common word is the best evidence yet of how moral failings can make one remarkably stupid -- far stupider than one should be based on bare mental acuity alone.
Oh. Like the word irrelevant? More Little Cal projection.
Ignore
: to refuse to take notice of
I ignore books on reincarnation. I don't read them. You're dishonest if you claim that you read things you've admitted that you ignore. Hence your need to project.
You admitted that you hadn't read even the first one until this post:
Still, I'll probably get around to looking at your first reply, then pointing out the problems with it in some detail,
August 11, 2017 6:12 AM
I have no reason to believe you've read the rest of them now that you've admitted you willfully ignore posts.
True. I ignored it because the quote does NOTHING to refute the criticism that the First Way remains apparently unsound regarding motion.
September 06, 2017 6:12 PM
Here's an anecdote. It seems the students I knew that studied psychology exhibited an extraordinary interest in obsessively psychologically analyzing everyone around them to the point of annoying everyone. When in fact, they were the most psychologically unstable of all my acquaintances. Projection.
bmiller said...
" You have never claimed that this "particular amount" was "not a measurable amount"
--I never said it was, you said I said it was, that makes you a liar.
@Strawdusty,
" You have never claimed that this "particular amount" was "not a measurable amount"
--I never said it was, you said I said it was, that makes you a liar.
This reply is incoherent as often happens when people are dissembling.
I assume that your first phrase "I never said it was" was supposed to address a claim such as *you said it was measurable*.
That was not in my statement.
The point is that for almost 7 weeks your story had been consistent. Then suddenly you changed the story by making a new claim that this ghostly force is not physically measurable on September 5th. Changing the details of a story over time is an indication of dissembling.
You also again accuse me of misquoting you, when in fact I quoted you word for word. I pointed this out previously, so now it's conclusive that you are projecting.
But of course all of this projection is a red herring anyway, meant to change the subject from how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim.
bmiller said...
" The point is that for almost 7 weeks your story had been consistent. "
--The point is you lied about my use of the word "measurable".
Cal Metzger said.. September 07, 2017 7:44 AM.
" @Stardusty, I am beginning to have some misgivings about our engagement here, in that it does occur to me that we are dealing with genuine pathology, and not just your garden variety moral turpitude and ignorance."
--Possible. The level of trollishness is so high with bmiller in particular that some sort of diagnosed mental illness is a consideration.
On another thread Joe Hinman shared with us that he has severe medical issues, is bedridden, and has dislexia. His responses are also highly variable, sometimes lucid and well written, other times grumpy, scattered, and disjointed. So I can imagine him having relatively good days and bad days which might be reflected in his writing.
The only good days I have noticed for bmiller and SteveK are when they feel they are in education mode. When they feel they are taking on the role of teacher it seems they are able to pull it together for a few days and actually write some thoughtful and cogent posts.
" The "discussion" here is starting to remind me of the link below, where a misguided desire to remedy psychosis with a kind of confrontational rationality was revealed to be both doomed and misguided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Christs_of_Ypsilanti"
--Apparently the three christs never changed, but there was a woman in a similar condition that was helped by the controversial technique. So one never knows how useless or helpful it is to put words of reason out on a blog.
Me: “Not knowing the meaning of a common word is the best evidence yet of how moral failings can make one remarkably stupid -- far stupider than one should be based on bare mental acuity alone.”
bmiller: “Oh. Like the word irrelevant?”
Yes, exactly; your persistent inability to comprehend words as they are commonly understood, instead exalting a twisted sense that conforms with your narcissism and pride, is what makes you appear even stupider. Yes, that is what I mean.
Me: “Ignore : to refuse to take notice of
bmiller: “I ignore books on reincarnation. I don't read them. You're dishonest if you claim that you read things you've admitted that you ignore. Hence your need to project.”
False. It’s entirely honest (and supremely common) for people to ignore things they read. That you would pretend otherwise is testament to how stupid your moral failings (pride and dishonesty) make you appear here.
For instance, here’s common use of the word ignore (in the headline) which is not only a common use of the term but parallels what I mean when I say I have ignoree your irrelevant and stupid comments:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/13/politics/cooper-gorka-exchange-trump-jr-emails-cnntv/index.html
The fact that I respond to some of your comments, and not all, does not mean that I haven’t read a prior comment. Only a real narcissist would imagine that the only reason someone ignores their comment is because they haven’t read it. Your imagining that it should be otherwise is another case of how your narcissism makes you appear even stupider.
bmiller: “You admitted that you hadn't read even the first one until this post:
[me] ‘Still, I'll probably get around to looking at your first reply, then pointing out the problems with it in some detail,’ August 11, 2017 6:12 AM”
Liar -- I did no such thing. My reply above indicates that I would review (look at) your first comment, this time with an eye to how you had tried to portray it. This is common use of common English.
For instance, if a friend is selling a car and asks if I want to buy it, and I say, "I will come look at it," it doesn’t mean that I have NEVER seen my friend's car before; it means that I will look at it in a different way than I have looked at it before.
Your pride and dishonesty prevent you from understanding words and expressions as they are commonly used, and this makes you (relentlessly) stupider.
bmiller: “I have no reason to believe you've read the rest of them now that you've admitted you willfully ignore posts.”
Liar. I have NOT said that I willfully ignore posts.
Your lie above is yet another example of how your moral failings prevent you from understanding even basic facts. As explained, "Ignore" does not necessarily mean "not read." See my reference above, and try to become more familiar with common usage of common words. But more importantly, consider not being a relentlessly vile person.
bmiller: “Here's an anecdote. It seems the students I knew that studied psychology exhibited an extraordinary interest in obsessively psychologically analyzing everyone around them to the point of annoying everyone. When in fact, they were the most psychologically unstable of all my acquaintances. Projection.”
Cool story, bro.
I have lots of friends who’s studied psychology. I don’t recall any of them suggesting that I would benefit from psychological analysis. Maybe you should consider the fact that those who know you in person have noticed you might benefit from psychological analysis as a sign that you might benefit from psychological analysis.
Delusional Dusty: "The only good days I have noticed for bmiller and SteveK are when they feel they are in education mode."
If only you'd take the education and apply it. Since you have been recently educated on the fact that (a) deceased people cannot move objects and (b) non-existing objects cannot cause change, will you give up your false beliefs?
Your criticisms rest on these false beliefs, which means your criticisms of the FW are invalid.
@Strawdusty,
" The point is that for almost 7 weeks your story had been consistent. "
--The point is you lied about my use of the word "measurable".
More projection and attempted distraction regarding your dissembling. I quoted you word for word. I never claimed you said anything other than what you said. You however changed your story.
But to the point.
"But of course all of this projection is a red herring anyway, meant to change the subject from how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
@Little Cal,
Yes, exactly; your persistent inability to comprehend words as they are commonly understood, instead exalting a twisted sense that conforms with your narcissism and pride, is what makes you appear even stupider. Yes, that is what I mean.
More projection. You routinely claim arguments that are relevant to the topic are irrelevant.
False. It’s entirely honest (and supremely common) for people to ignore things they read. That you would pretend otherwise is testament to how stupid your moral failings (pride and dishonesty) make you appear here.
Are you telling me that you read everything that you choose to ignore? How ever do you get anything done?
Only a real narcissist would imagine that the only reason someone ignores their comment is because they haven’t read it.
I don't believe you read the comments you claimed to have read because you exhibit no familiarity with them. The fact that you mentioned you ignored them gives me further confirmation of that belief. I'm just following where the facts lead me.
If you had read the comments and were familiar with them and further if you agree with Strawdusty's arguments, then you should be able to tell us
"how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
You dodged this last time.
@Little Cal,
bmiller: “You admitted that you hadn't read even the first one until this post:
[me] ‘Still, I'll probably get around to looking at your first reply, then pointing out the problems with it in some detail,’ August 11, 2017 6:12 AM”
Liar -- I did no such thing. My reply above indicates that I would review (look at) your first comment, this time with an eye to how you had tried to portray it. This is common use of common English.
I can only respond to what you post. You have not demonstrated that you have read the comments before, and then August 11 for the first time you mentioned that you would "probably get around to looking at your first reply". Don't blame me for concluding that you haven't read the comments when you'd offered no response and then mention you'd look at the first reply August 11.
Liar. I have NOT said that I willfully ignore posts.
Then did someone *force* you to ignore the posts against your will? Projector.
Your lie above is yet another example of how your moral failings prevent you from understanding even basic facts. As explained, "Ignore" does not necessarily mean "not read."
You accused me of lying in the same comment that you allow that ignore *can* indeed mean "not read". Your own moral failings have overridden your (perhaps minimal) critical thinking skills. More projection.
I have lots of friends who’s studied psychology. I don’t recall any of them suggesting that I would benefit from psychological analysis.
What a surprize that you would miss the point again. You are the one I am referring to as having " an extraordinary interest in obsessively psychologically analyzing everyone around them to the point of annoying everyone" instead of debating the actual topic.
Which is most recently the claim that teeny tiny (undetectable) forces from deceased lineages move things and thus defeat the First Way.
Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
bmiller: "Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks. Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
The above is why I ignore so many of your comments.
You lie. (I haven't said that "undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks" -- this is some bizarre invention of yours, I imagine, although I don't care enough to look up the origin of the phrase, especially since it seems like something you and steveK regularly write.)
And seeing as how I haven't said the above, it appears irrelevant to your supposed defense of the First Way as offered here by Stardusty and myself.
Deluded Dusty said this, Cal. Not using those exact words. Stop lying Cal.
Since we're on the subject of Dusty. The existence of moving train wheels confirms that he is wrong about the existence of an essentially ordered causal series.
They exist. It's been verified. Dusty is dead wrong, thus his criticism is worthless.
What's it's like to have a crush on a deluded fool?
bmiller said...
" I quoted you word for word. I never claimed you said anything other than what you said. "
--Liar, you said I said "physically measurable".
@Strawdusty,
" I quoted you word for word. I never claimed you said anything other than what you said. "
--Liar, you said I said "physically measurable".
You keep making this claim. I never quoted you as saying that. I quoted you word for word. Show me your original quote and then show my post where I quoted you as saying "physically measurable". It should be easy to show this since all of our posts are right here.
It is apparent however that you are dissembling by changing your story after 7 weeks.
"But of course all of this projection is a red herring anyway, meant to change the subject from how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
You claimed to have refuted the First Way and part of that refutation depends on the force of non-existent things. This is your chance. Tell us how you know that long ago deceased relatives provide some undetectable force that moves sticks. Then explain how these undetectable forces defeat the First Way.
@Little Cal,
Me: If you had read the comments and were familiar with them and further if you agree with Strawdusty's arguments, then you should be able to tell us
"how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
You dodged this last time.
Little Cal:"You lie. (I haven't said that "undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks" -- this is some bizarre invention of yours, I imagine, although I don't care enough to look up the origin of the phrase, especially since it seems like something you and steveK regularly write.)"
More confirmation of my belief that you didn't read the comments while claiming you did.
So far, I consider it a justified belief that you didn't actually read the comments.
1) You claim to have read the comments but appear to be unfamiliar with the content of any comments. You just demonstrated this here.
2) You specifically refused to read the 4 posts I indicated answered your challenge. If you had read them then you would have known what they said. So further confirmation that you didn't read them.
3) You claimed to have "have demonstrated that your claims of having refuted the criticisms showing why the First Way is a bad argument in those comments are completely vacuous."August 28, 2017 7:27 AM
4) Yet but you claimed to have ignored them. How could one claim to have demonstrated "those comments are completely vacuous." if one ignored them?
5) You regularly and repeatedly claim that your opponents are lying when there is no basis for you to reach that conclusion. A tell for projection.
6) The odd claim that "It’s entirely honest (and supremely common) for people to ignore things they read." appears to be a dissembling answer. Further confirmed by the non-response to my question "Are you telling me that you read everything that you choose to ignore? How ever do you get anything done?"
I could go on, but I don't want to. I'd rather hear you defend your claim of August 04, 2017 6:00 AM that this list of your's was not addressed. The fact of the matter is that the list I provided was just a roundup of responses that actually demonstrated the fallacies of your list.
September 04, 2017 6:40 PM
@SteveK,
Little Cal has never actually tried to argue against the First Way choosing instead to only fling insults and feeble attempts at character assassination. Seems to be the only thing he can do.
At least Strawdusty tried to make an actual argument however funny. Now he has nothing left other than "dog ate my homework" excuses and has resorted to Little Cal "reasoning". I used to call him a crank, but now I realize that was too generous.
I will probably be slow to post for a while.
@bmiller
Cal let's Dusty argue and then he attaches himself to the argument because he admires Dusty's bulging brain. We all know that Cal isn't smart enough to formulate these arguments by himself. The problem is that Cal didn't realize until it was too late that he hitched his wagon to a delusional fool. Dusty's comments demonstrate that fact. I'm sure Cal is emotionally distraught
@SteveK,
bulging brain.
LOL!
@Strawdusty,
What is this post supposed to mean?
September 04, 2017 6:40 PM
September 08, 2017 7:49 PM
Is it that you now realize that you falsely accused me of misquoting you?
Are you honest enough to admit it?
@Strawdusty,
But more importantly:
"You claimed to have refuted the First Way and part of that refutation depends on the force of non-existent things. This is your chance. Tell us how you know that long ago deceased relatives provide some undetectable force that moves sticks. Then explain how these undetectable forces defeat the First Way."
Stevek: "Deluded Dusty said this, Cal. Not using those exact words."
That you think the above is a testament to how stupid you are. You can't quote Stardusty saying what you represent he said, and you blame this not on your own stupidity, supplanted by your deep moral failings, but on the person who did not do what you claimed he has. You are vile, and that makes you even stupider than you already are.
Stevek: "Stop lying Cal."
I am not lying, nor has anyone shown how it is that I have supposedly lied in my comments here. If you disagree, reference me lying here. Use my actual words, not your stupid misunderstanding of them, and show how it is that my words are a lie.
You, on the other hand, are a known liar. From earlier:
Stardusty: "Yes, ask a mechanical engineer to model it for you and you can get a fairly close answer"
Stevek: "I'm a mechanical engineer."
But you are not a mechanical engineer. You are a known liar in that your lie is both obvious to those of us who know basic science (you obviously do not, which is a prerequisite to earning a degree in Mechanical Engineering), but more particularly and ominously YOU also actually know as well that you aren't a mechanical engineer.
Yes, you know this -- you actually know that you have not earned a degree in Mechanical Engineering (which is what people mean when they say, "I'm a mechanical engineer.") So, you accuse others of being what you know yourself to be.
You are vile.
So reconcile the above, liar, with what you write here -- that you falsely accuse others of lying, when all this time you KNOW what educated people can easily see for themselves --that you yourself are the liar.
bmiller: "@Strawdusty, What is this post supposed to mean?"
Hey, @bmiller -- I'll help you out, bro. Here's how it worked. First, you wrote this:
bmiller: "Not only do [Stardusty and I] think ghosts cause trains to run, but entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
Do you deny that in the above you have represented what Stardusty and I have argued for?
Or would you like to weasel out by saying that what you wrote was wrong, and irrelevant?
Take your pick.
If you choose the first, you have admitted that you think you correctly represented what Stardusty [and I] have claimed here.
And then you go on to lie again, by saying:
bmiller: "I quoted you word for word. I never claimed you said anything other than what you said."
Nope. Above, you claim to represent what Stardusty and I have said, which is demonstrably false, and in so doing you definitely did NOT quote either of us "word for word" -- as is so often the case, you wriote what you misunderstand, and then attribute that misunderstanding to us.
You are stupid, and you are then dishonest about your stupidity. At this point you pose a chicken and egg problem, and that's about it.
Cal: "You can't quote Stardusty saying what you represent he said"
Proof that I was correct about Cal being emotionally distraught. Cal defends his man like a battered wife. She cannot get herself to see the bruises for what they are.
As much as it breaks your heart, Cal, Dusty's delusional comments are there. He's not denying it because he cannot. Like bruises, everyone can see them.
I'm sorry that you've been battered and betrayed. Time will heal your wounded heart.
@Stevek, why did you lie about being a mechanical engineer?
@Little Cal,
Do you deny that in the above you have represented what Stardusty and I have argued for?
So you now admit that you too now hold that long ago deceased male relatives move sticks a "particular amount" and his recent dissembling that "particular amount"=undetectable.
But you just claimed you didn't know anything about this concept:
You lie. (I haven't said that "undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks" -- this is some bizarre invention of yours, I imagine, although I don't care enough to look up the origin of the phrase, especially since it seems like something you and steveK regularly write.)
Now, regarding the quote of mine you selected. You notice that I did not claim to be quoting anyone. I was entirely justified in my use of the words "PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE" wrt to what Strawdusty posted. I specifically asked him for the quantity of this made up force and he offered no correction or qualification was offered to that phrase for 7 weeks.
"If that is so, then please give me the physically quantified amount of force physics claims is being supplied by each of them during the motion of that particular amount.
".
Now of course he is dissembling, just like you.
Nope. Above, you claim to represent what Stardusty and I have said, which is demonstrably false, and in so doing you definitely did NOT quote either of us "word for word" -- as is so often the case, you wriote what you misunderstand, and then attribute that misunderstanding to us.
I did not misquote anyone. If you claim I did, then show the original quote and then where you claimed I cited it and changed the words. You are now telling a lie.
But now that you've changed your story and tell us you agree with Strawdusty's teeny tiny ghostly forces:
"Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks."
@SteveK,
Looks like the Science Deniers have given up any semblance of trying to refute the First Way.
It is entertaining to watch the increasingly foolish explanations they come up with as their arguments are examined logically. But at the same time, I have to feel sorry for someone to go to such foolish lengths rather than just admitting they were wrong and move on.
bmiller; "So you now admit that you too now hold that long ago deceased male relatives move sticks a "particular amount" and his recent dissembling that "particular amount"=undetectable."
Nope. Learn to read. (Btw, "particular amount" does not necessarily mean "undetectable" -- this should go without saying, but you appear so stupid about everything obvious that I might as well bring that to your attention as well.)
Here's what I wrote:
Me: "Do you deny that in the above YOU have REPRESENTED what Stardusty and I have argued for?"
YOUR REPRESENTATION of what we have said for DOES NOT EQUAL what we have actually said -- it means that you had tried to summarize what we had argued for, even though your summary was incorrect. You represented what we had said, but your summary is not an accurate representation.
You wrote:
bmiller: ""Not only do [Stardusty and I] think ghosts cause trains to run, but entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
That's you, (falsely) representing that Stardusty and I have somewhere argued that, "entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
But we haven't ever said that. When called out for misrepresenting what we had been saying, and insisting that you were somehow still correct, you now try to weasel away by saying you didn't directly quote us above, even though you were clearly trying to represent what we were saying. But not even that dodge can extricate you from your dishonesty.
Do you deny that in the first quote above that you were trying to actually represent what Stardusty and I have argued for?
Or would you like to weasel out by saying that what you wrote was wrong, and irrelevant?
It has to be one or the other. It can't be none, or both.
bmiller: "Now of course he is dissembling, just like you."
Ignoring you and your mostly irrelevant comments is not dissembling. Only someone in the throes of narcissism would consider it some kind of dishonesty to not bother responding to his twaddle.
bmiller: "But now that you've changed your story and tell us you agree with Strawdusty's teeny tiny ghostly forces:
"Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks." "
You lie. You are a liar.
Hey, here's a thought? Why don't you and stevek go do some mekanical enjuneerin' together! You two must be the best at it!
>> why did you lie about being a mechanical engineer?
You're projecting. It's what you're good at.
Cal: "YOUR REPRESENTATION of what we have said for DOES NOT EQUAL what we have actually said"
Nope. Your words and Dusty's words represent what you said. Those words demonstrate that Dusty thinks that deceased bodies cause motion.
Prove me wrong.
Me: "@Stevek, why did you lie about being a mechanical engineer?"
Stevek: "You're projecting. It's what you're good at."
Huh? Are you suggesting that I projected myself into you and made you type this?
Stevek: "I'm a mechanical engineer."
--
You're not a mechanical engineer. And you also know that you're not a mechanical engineer.
Is it possible that you are so dishonest that you stupidly think that you have earned a mechanical engineering degree?
Does moral depravity really make one that stupid?
I doubt it -- in your case, I think you know the truth, but you're just comfortable with lying.
Says a lot about you, really.
With apologists, I usually just say,
Pretend pretend pretend.
With you, it's
Lie lie lie.
stevek: "Nope. Your words and Dusty's words represent what you said. Those words demonstrate that Dusty thinks that deceased bodies cause motion. Prove me wrong."
Okay. Stardusty and I have never said, "deceased bodies cause motion."
That was easy.
Cal Metzger said... September 09, 2017 3:05 PM
stevek: "Nope. Your words and Dusty's words represent what you said. Those words demonstrate that Dusty thinks that deceased bodies cause motion. Prove me wrong."
" Okay. Stardusty and I have never said, "deceased bodies cause motion." That was easy."
" Professor May ... returns to the method of ascribing to me views I neither hold nor expressed and then rebutting them"
-- Henry Kissinger
In the rarefied realm of international diplomacy and military conflict one can comprehend rational motivations for this sort of deceit.
Why bmiller and SteveK would go to the lengths they do to falsely ascribe to you and I views we did not express and do not hold is a bizarre mystery indeed.
Now Dusty is saying the deceased do not cause motion.
Dusty is saying if the father and grandfather are deceased they are not causing motion.
Dusty is saying that his comments about the father and grandfather have nothing to do with the FW argument because deceased people do not cause motion.
Dusty is saying he still doesn't understand the FW argument because he thought the father and grandfather were relevant to the FW.
Dusty is saying his criticism is invalid
Thanks for clearing that up.
Similar statements apply to the motion of train wheels.
Dusty is saying that his comments about the refinery have nothing to do with the FW argument because refineries do not cause train wheels to turn.
Dusty is saying he still doesn't understand the FW argument because he thought the refinery was relevant to the FW and motion of train wheels
Dusty is saying his criticism is invalid
We're nearly at 2500 comments and you're still lost and confused.
Oops... nearly 2600!! Even worse.
stevek: "Dusty is saying he still doesn't understand the FW argument because he thought the refinery was relevant to the FW and motion of train wheels"
Statement like these merely demonstrate that you are stupid.
stevek: "I'm a mechanical engineer."
Just as statements like these demonstrate that you are a liar.
Which answers a question of who would defend the First Way as being a good argument: a stupid liar.
In the prolonged absence of any disciplined, meaningful response to the criticism of the First Way from the apologists here, characterizations of their behavior and explanations for their stupidity are apparently all that remain concerning this "discussion" of the First Way.
Cal: "Statement like these merely demonstrate that you are stupid."
Oh, do tell. I look forward to you supporting this assertion with evidence.
@Stawdusty,
Why bmiller and SteveK would go to the lengths they do to falsely ascribe to you and I views we did not express and do not hold is a bizarre mystery indeed.
Oh, you mean quoting you, asking you for clarification and then quoting your response. That was no trouble at all.
The fact that 7 weeks later the following exchange, you dissembled and now say you meant "particular amount" to mean "too small in force to be physically measurable", does not mean I failed to process that bit of nonsense when you posted it.
Once again the exchange:
Strawdusty:
"The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
Me:
"If that is so, then please give me the physically quantified amount of force physics claims is being supplied by each of them during the motion of that particular amount.
Perhaps one could attribute some portion of the force to a particular heartbeat of the man since that is part of the activity of the existing form of the man. But the the previous deceased generations of male parents do not exist as material entities and so cannot affect material things. "Dead men tell no tales" I've heard.
Non existent things cannot cause change."
July 22, 2017 at 3:46 PM
Me:
""But tell me the ratio of force each of your ancestors contribute to your golf swing?""
Strawdusty:
"--Is fertilization exothermic or endothermic? I really don't know, what difference does it make relevant to how the First Way is erroneous on the modern science of motion and conservation of matter/energy?"
September 05, 2017 12:10 PM
A cause may be too small in force to be physically measurable.
My new question regarding your new claim:
"But of course all of this projection is a red herring anyway, meant to change the subject from how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
I keep asking but no one seems to be able to answer. Now maybe you still think I misunderstand your claim, so let me tell you why I chose the words I did:
1) Generally when people talk about things being moved by deceased persons the are referring to ghosts.
2) You claimed these deceased people physically contributed to moving a stick a particular amount
3) I've never heard anyone use the term "particular amount" to mean "too small in force to be physically measurable", but leaving that aside, if you consider it a small force, it is a teeny tiny force.
4) Perhaps you would quibble with my term undetectable, but I chose that word as being more succinct than the phrase "too small in force to be physically measurable". Use the full phrase in your explanation if you want to.
If you wish people to ascribe to views that you truly express and hold. Then answer the question.
@Little Cal,
bmiller; "So you now admit that you too now hold that long ago deceased male relatives move sticks a "particular amount" and his recent dissembling that "particular amount"=undetectable."
Nope. Learn to read.
You just wrote that you and Strawdusty were arguing for the same thing, now you deny it. Make up your mind.
@Little Cal,
Btw, "particular amount" does not necessarily mean "undetectable"
You're right. To most English speakers it means a specific quantity that can be distinguished from other quantities and from no quantity at all. Thank you for supporting me against Strawdusty's incoherent dissembling.
@Little Cal,
Do you deny that in the above you have represented what Stardusty and I have argued for?
Of course not as I mentioned in my post September 09, 2017 9:44 AM.
Did you read the post? Did you read it and ignore it? Or did you just ignore it? They all seem to mean the same thing to you.
You accused me of misquoting someone. I did not misquote anyone.
This was you responsed as the instance where I *misquoted* someone.
bmiller: ""Not only do [Stardusty and I] think ghosts cause trains to run, but entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
That's you, (falsely) representing that Stardusty and I have somewhere argued that, "entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
But we haven't ever said that.
I was not quoting anyone in that snippet yet you imply I did with your claim "But we haven't ever said that.". Where in that quote of mine do you find that I said "Strawdusty said...", used quote marks, used italics or bold as I normally do when I'm directly quoting someone. You claim to be educated. I am now beginning to doubt that.
@Little Cal,
bmiller: "Now of course he is dissembling, just like you."
Ignoring you and your mostly irrelevant comments is not dissembling.
You claim to ignore my posts, but claim to have read them. Indeed you claim to have read and understood them enough to have demonstrated the claims are completely vacuous. But if you ignore posts, how can you claim to know what is in them? And if you actually claim to have demonstrated the claims are vacuous, then how can you claim you ignored them?
To refresh your memory I posted these relevant points September 08, 2017 7:48 PM :
"1) You claim to have read the comments but appear to be unfamiliar with the content of any comments. You just demonstrated this here.
2) You specifically refused to read the 4 posts I indicated answered your challenge. If you had read them then you would have known what they said. So further confirmation that you didn't read them.
3) You claimed to have "have demonstrated that your claims of having refuted the criticisms showing why the First Way is a bad argument in those comments are completely vacuous."August 28, 2017 7:27 AM
4) Yet but you claimed to have ignored them. How could one claim to have demonstrated "those comments are completely vacuous." if one ignored them?
6) The odd claim that "It’s entirely honest (and supremely common) for people to ignore things they read." appears to be a dissembling answer. Further confirmed by the non-response to my question "Are you telling me that you read everything that you choose to ignore? How ever do you get anything done?"
*Appeal to Anderson Cooper*. Is that a new fallacy?
@Little Cal,
Now, since you claim that you and Strawdusty hold the same view would you like to defend your claim that your deceased relatives move sticks?
@Little Cal,
Sorry, post of September 10, 2017 6:34 PM
Said:
"This was you responsed as the instance where I *misquoted* someone."
Should have said:
This was how you responded to the instance where I *misquoted* someone.*
@bmiller
"Now, since you claim that you and Strawdusty hold the same view would you like to defend your claim that your deceased relatives move sticks?"
Cal and Dusty will claim he doesn't believe deceased relatives move sticks. They are stupid - very stupid - but probably not that stupid, although I could be wrong about that.
They will claim that ALIVE relatives (at the time) contributed to moving the sticks today. It's an equally indefensible belief because there is NO evidence for it. There's no SCIENTIFIC evidence for it and no OBSERVED evidence for it. REALITY doesn't reveal this to anyone.
They both imagine this is how reality works because they are deluded naturalists, not sane realists. Conservation of energy is Dusty's magic pixy dust. It answers every question. Sprinkle liberally and questions disappear - EXCEPT the question of WHAT caused the conversion to start.
a) WHAT caused you to get out of bed this morning? The big bang, of course. Duh!
b) WHAT caused you to swing the golf club today? Your relatives (now dead), the big bang (now over), what you had for breakfast (now digested), the sun (now set) - basically everything throughout history contributed to putting you in motion.
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."
It would be hillarious if it wasn't so tragic.
Dusty will ramble on with tall tales, and Cal will gaze lovingly in his direction - but no evidence will ever be presented. None. Zip. Zero. All we get is regurgitated talking points of naturalistic claptrap consistent with "the universe made me do it"
bmiller: “You just wrote that you and Strawdusty were arguing for the same thing, now you deny it. Make up your mind.”
We are arguing for the same thing. Evidently, you don’t understand what that is. Hence your confused comments.
me: “Btw, "particular amount" does not necessarily mean "undetectable"
bmiller: “You're right. To most English speakers it means a specific quantity that can be distinguished from other quantities and from no quantity at all. Thank you for supporting me against Strawdusty's incoherent dissembling.”
Distinguishable and measurable are different words, because they describe different things. One can distinguish a particular word from another, for instance, though the means for distinguishing between them is not what we would call “measurable.” That you think using normal words in normal ways is somehow “incoherent dissembling” is just another way of exhibiting how your moral weakness makes you stupider.
bmiller: “You accused me of misquoting someone. I did not misquote anyone.”
I accused you of misrepresenting what Stardusty and I had argued for, or of raising an other irrelevant point of your own invention and attributing that to us. I also predicted that you would try to weasel your way out of it by pretending that you were accused of misquoting, and that your misrepresentation is somehow exempt.
Your poor moral character makes you not only stupider, but also more predictably boring.
bmiller: “I was not quoting anyone in that snippet yet you imply I did with your claim "But we haven't ever said that.”.”
Do you deny that you were attempting to represent Stardusty’s and my position with this:
bmiller: “bmiller: ""Not only do [Stardusty and I] think ghosts cause trains to run, but entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
Yes, or no?
Answer that simple question.
All the rivers flowing into a lake contribute to the energy that the dam released at 8am, but neither the lake nor any of the rivers caused the dam to start releasing it at 8am.
Conservation of energy is not the magic dust you think it is.
@Cal
"Physically measureable" does not necessarily mean that it's ACTUALLY possible to measure it today - or ever. It just means there is a particular amount, a finite particular amount. This should go without saying, but you appear to be so stupid as to not realize this.
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?"
Me: "Um, yes, because that logic is inevitable."
stevek: "It would be hillarious if it wasn't so tragic."
What's tragic is that you seem to imagine that your staring at a computer screen right now can somehow be dissociated from prior events, events that necessarily trace all the way back to the Big Bang.
Do you know who both understands and accepts the sentence above?
Mechanical engineers.
You make yourself appear stupid, and you lie.
Cal: "What's tragic is that you seem to imagine that your staring at a computer screen right now can somehow be dissociated from prior events, events that necessarily trace all the way back to the Big Bang."
"The history of the universe caused it to happen" - said no journal of science or physics ever.
The history of the universe caused:
a) The Lord of the Rings Trilogy to be written
b) Cal to lie repeatedly
c) the computer on your desk to be delivered to your home
d) your eyes to see objects that aren't actually there
e) you to believe that God exists
f) the refinery to make refined oil
g) the train to be late to the station
The list is endless and so are Cal's delusions.
The dog ate my homework....because the history of the universe caused it do that.
Naturalism is anti-reality for deluded people. Cal and Dusty are official apologists for the cult of Gnu.
@Little Cal,
We are arguing for the same thing. Evidently, you don’t understand what that is. Hence your confused comments.
You denied it was your position September 08, 2017 1:26 PM When I asked:
Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
Now you claim it is your position. If so, then answer the question.
You seem upset that I'm ridiculing Strawdusty's position. My reply is that if he doesn't want his position to be ridiculed then he shouldn't express ridiculous positions.
And BTW, it seems that you didn't even know this was "your" position until September 4th when I posted the quote from a link you ignored.
Distinguishable and measurable are different words, because they describe different things. One can distinguish a particular word from another, for instance, though the means for distinguishing between them is not what we would call “measurable.” That you think using normal words in normal ways is somehow “incoherent dissembling” is just another way of exhibiting how your moral weakness makes you stupider.
Where did I use the word *measurable* in the quote you selected? You are babbling nonsense.
You obviously scored a "particular amount" on your IQ test. Perhaps Strawdusty's account of the phrase is correct after all.
bmiller: “You accused me of misquoting someone. I did not misquote anyone.”
LC:"I accused you of misrepresenting what Stardusty and I had argued for,
You are dissembling.
You accused me of misrepresenting something Strawdusty said. That is an accusation of me misquoting him.September 09, 2017 7:46 AM
Nope. Above, you claim to represent what Stardusty and I have said,
Now you've changed your story to accuse me of misrepresenting your argument rather than misrepresenting what you said.
Oh, and more projection.
@Little Cal,
Answer that simple question.
More confirmation that you didn't read the list of posts. You didn't even read my posts of September 09, 2017 9:44 AM and September 10, 2017 6:34 PM where I answered this question.
Once again briefly: I posted that September 04, 2017 6:40 PM. Strawdusty first dissembled by changing his claim September 05, 2017 12:10 PM when he said this:
A cause may be too small in force to be physically measurable.
Since that time I have asked:
"But of course all of this projection is a red herring anyway, meant to change the subject from how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
So now it's your turn to answer the question.
@SteveK,
Cal and Dusty will claim he doesn't believe deceased relatives move sticks. They are stupid - very stupid - but probably not that stupid, although I could be wrong about that.
I think you are wrong about that. Otherwise why insist they move sticks a "particular amount" then? It is where their incoherent metaphysics has led them. They are faced with the choice of sticking to the claim or giving up on their nonsensical scientistic philosophy (which is neither scientific nor philosophical). The cognitive dissonance is causing them to lash out and say even more ridiculous things.
SteveK 10:18 AM
""Physically measureable" does not necessarily mean that it's ACTUALLY possible to measure it today - or ever."
measure able
able to be measured. A finite thing that cannot be measured is immeasurable, not measurable.
meas·ur·a·ble
ˈmeZH(ə)rəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: measurable
able to be measured.
large enough to be measured;
" It just means there is a particular amount, a finite particular amount."
--If you are a mechanical engineer you are the least qualified one I have ever encountered.
How stupid. You don't even know what "measurable" means. You think it is a synonym for "finite". How incredibly idiotic of you.
@bmiller
A furnace causes the glass to heat and soften
A machine causes the glass to change shape
Cool air causes the glass to cool and solidify
Like the refinery and the father/grandfather examples, Cal and Dust would tell us the furnace caused the glass to solidify - because history of the universe, or ghosts - I'm not sure which.
As Dusty would say: The furnace and the machine were all instrumental in that particular glass cooling & solidifying a particular amount.
This is the cult of naturalism. This is delusional thinking. This is anti-reality. This is Cal and Dusty.
I think we can wrap it up because there's no reasoning with people like that.
Sigh.
bmiller: “You denied it was your position September 08, 2017 1:26 PM When I asked:
Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks./ Tell us how you know this? Support your claim." / Now you claim it is your position. If so, then answer the question.”
You apparently can’t read.
Stardusty and I are arguing for the same thing.
You apparently can’t represent (understand?) what we are arguing for, but instead you invent “teeny tiny ghostly…moving sticks”), and are apparently so dishonest or stupid (both, probably) that you somehow think your invented position is what Stardusty and I have been pointing out.
Yes, you make yourself appear that stupid: you can’t comprehend what we argue (through dishonesty, stupidity, or both), and you present argument of your invention that simply reveals how dishonest and stupid you are.
And you are apparently so out of touch that you imagine that your rabid and transparent rantings do you credit, instead of revealing the extent that your moral turpitude makes you stupider, and mocke the notion that apologists are clear or rational thinkers.
Understand this: I believe you are in the throes of a pathology that is a result of your moral turpitude, and as a result I don’t care what you think; I can only hope the fact that your incoherent and stupid comments serve as a cautionary tale to any observer who wonders what comes from cultivating the thinking habits of an apologist.
bmiller: “You seem upset that I'm ridiculing Strawdusty's position. My reply is that if he doesn't want his position to be ridiculed then he shouldn't express ridiculous positions. / And BTW, it seems that you didn't even know this was "your" position until September 4th when I posted the quote from a link you ignored.”
My position is not what you invent it to be. My position can ONLY be understood by the things I write, not what you invent it to be.
Only a narcissist would think that what he imagines another’s position to be is what another’s position must be.
bmiller: “Where did I use the word *measurable* in the quote you selected? You are babbling nonsense.”
Here:
bmiller: ""Not only do [Stardusty and I] think ghosts cause trains to run, but entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some physically MEASURABLE force to your golf swing."
You should be able to recognize your quote above by now because it’s been selected for citation back 7 times since you wrote it.
Like stevek, you seem to have become entirely unhinged. This exercise has been worth it for me, though, because it’s strong evidence that those of poor moral character will retreat to greater levels of irrationality (aided by their dishonesty) rather than correct as undeniable facts are stacked higher and higher in their face.
So, you are unsalvageable, at least through rational discourse. That much is becoming obvious.
Me:”I accused you of misrepresenting what Stardusty and I had argued for,
bmiller: “You are dissembling.”
I don’t think you know what it means to dissemble. You have misrepresented. I pointed it out. It is not dissembling to recognize and stand against dishonesty. As you usually do, you have
bmiller: “You accused me of misrepresenting something Strawdusty said.”
Good. Hey, you wrote something that’s actually approximately correct! Good for you, good!
bmiller: “That is an accusation of me misquoting him. September 09, 2017 7:46 AM”
No, misquoting is putting quotes around something, and claiming that it’s exactly what someone said or wrote.
Misrepresenting is when you pretend that a warped, contorted, and otherwise inaccurate version of what someone was saying is what they actually had been claiming, arguing for, etc. They are similar, but different. But your claim above is, once again, factually wrong — you misrepresented, that is what you I pointed out, and pointing out that you have misrepresented
Me: “Nope. Above, you claim to represent what Stardusty and I have said, which is demonstrably false, and in so doing you definitely did NOT quote either of us "word for word" -- as is so often the case, you wriote what you misunderstand, and then attribute that misunderstanding to us.”
bmiller: “Now you've changed your story to accuse me of misrepresenting your argument rather than misrepresenting what you said. Oh, and more projection.”
There’s no practical difference between misrepresenting our argument, which is what we say, with mis-representing what we say.
You have perhaps never expressed so well the degree to which you have become unhinged, and the extent of your stupidity, as you have in your latest spate of comments.
@Little Cal,
How funny.
After posting 4 times you can't answer this simple question:
"Tell us then "how you happen to know that undetectable teeny tiny ghostly forces contribute to moving sticks.
Tell us how you know this? Support your claim."
Not in this post:September 12, 2017 10:49 AM.
Nor this one: September 12, 2017 10:49 AM.
This one either: September 12, 2017 10:49 AM
Nope still no answer even in this one: September 12, 2017 10:49 AM
You apparently can’t represent (understand?) what we are arguing for, but instead you invent “teeny tiny ghostly…moving sticks”), and are apparently so dishonest or stupid (both, probably) that you somehow think your invented position is what Stardusty and I have been pointing out.
Then go ahead and represent your position accurately. Tell me how you know that deceased relatives are moving sticks a "particular amount"?
All I found was more dissembling. For instance:
You posted:
me: “Btw, "particular amount" does not necessarily mean "undetectable"
bmiller: “You're right. To most English speakers it means a specific quantity that can be distinguished from other quantities and from no quantity at all. Thank you for supporting me against Strawdusty's incoherent dissembling.”
Distinguishable and measurable are different words, because they describe different things. One can distinguish a particular word from another, for instance, though the means for distinguishing between them is not what we would call “measurable.” That you think using normal words in normal ways is somehow “incoherent dissembling” is just another way of exhibiting how your moral weakness makes you stupider.
I asked:
Where did I use the word *measurable* in the quote you selected? You are babbling nonsense.
Then you post a different quote of mine that contained the word. Then project that I am being dishonest and unhinged. Very entertaining.
@Little Cal,
No, misquoting is putting quotes around something, and claiming that it’s exactly what someone said or wrote.
For goodness sakes. You claim to be educated so you should know what words mean. If not then you should have the sense to look words up in the dictionary.
Here is the definition:
Misquote:
1. quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately.
Here is what you accused me of the first time:
bmiller: “You accused me of misrepresenting something Strawdusty said.”
Here is what you accused me of the second time:
bmiller: “Now you've changed your story to accuse me of misrepresenting your argument rather than misrepresenting what you said. Oh, and more projection.”
You first accused me of misquoting what Strawdusty said and then changed the accusation to misrepresenting your argument.
In fact, what I did was express what Strawdusty thought as evidenced by what Strawdusty said. Which I was justified in doing at the time since it was before he dissembled regarding "particular amount".
If you cited the quote 7 times, I would have expected you to have read it at least once.
I find it interesting that all you seem to be able to focus on is trying to justify your own dissembling and projection by straining to find that in what others post.
You claim that I have misrepresented "your" argument. OK,
"Then go ahead and represent your position accurately. Tell me how you know that deceased relatives are moving sticks a "particular amount"?"
No one seems to want to tell me exactly how I'm misrepresenting anything.
bmiller: "Then go ahead and represent your position accurately. Tell me how you know that deceased relatives are moving sticks a "particular amount"?"
I don't know where to start. I think you should become less stupid, stop being dishonest, learn the rules of argument, and take some basic science courses.
That is, I believe, the only response your ridiculous question above deserves.
bmiller: Here is what you accused me of the first time:"
bmiller [QUOTING HIMSELF]: “You accused me of misrepresenting something Strawdusty said.”
Here is what you accused me of the second time:
bmiller [QUOTING HIMSELF]: “Now you've changed your story to accuse me of misrepresenting your argument rather than misrepresenting what you said. Oh, and more projection.”
Awesome.
You are so off the rails that you think that the crap that you write is somehow my fault.
What a wacko.
Cal is being coy. I'll try to help.
Dusty: ""The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
What does Dusty mean here? Here are the following attempts to understand it, and the responses we got.
1) This isn't relevant to the FW because the grandather/father aren't causing the stick to move. Response: You're stupid.
2) The deceased grandfather/father are causing the stick to move. Response: You're stupid.
3) The alive grandfather/father is causing the stick to move. Response: You're stupid. No.
4) The big bang caused the stick to move. Response: You're stupid. Events necessarily trace all the way back to the Big Bang
5) The big bang caused the The Lord of the Rings Trilogy to be written. Response: You've become entirely unhinged. Oh, and you're stupid.
When will we get the TRUE explanation of Dusty's statement? Dusty is being coy so for now all we can do is what we've been doing - reading the text as plainly as we can.
Blame yourselves for not helping to clarify.
@Little Cal,
"I don't know where to start.
Of course you don't. You aren't capable.
If someone knows what they're talking about, they can express it.
Some projection and then:
That is, I believe, the only response your ridiculous question above deserves.
Ha ha. You claim I misrepresent something then refuse to explain how it should be represented.
Dissembling again.
If you can't answer this, then I have to conclude I've got it right.
"Then go ahead and represent your position accurately. Tell me how you know that deceased relatives are moving sticks a "particular amount"?"
@Little Cal,
You are so off the rails that you think that the crap that you write is somehow my fault.
No. You are guilty of falsely accusing me and of, well almost everything, and of course that is your fault. I'm not surprised since you do it every post.
I figure I must have an accurate description of the claim now since no one has corrected me. If I did, someone would have responded to this:
You claim that I have misrepresented "your" argument. OK,
"Then go ahead and represent your position accurately. Tell me how you know that deceased relatives are moving sticks a "particular amount"?"
No one seems to want to tell me exactly how I'm misrepresenting anything.
The problem is that there is no way in principle for physics to support this argument whether one dissembles on the meaning of "particular amount" or not.
@SteveK,
When will we get the TRUE explanation of Dusty's statement?
No one has told us how we got it wrong. So we must have it right.
What is most interesting is that we've found the First Way being attacked as being out of touch with Science. But when the objections are analyzed, we find that the objections themselves contradict Science.
This fact is so disturbing that the 2 atheists have now denied Science itself, leaving them no basis for their belief system. This causes cognitive dissonance.
A sure tell for someone in that condition is that they start to read things they want to believe rather than what is actually written.
stevek, quoting Stardusty: ""The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
stevek: "What does Dusty mean here?"
Can you reference the datestamp for the comment in which Stardusty wrote the quotation you provided above?
It's part of a conversation at Feser's blog. It was referenced by bmiller as being from
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html
July 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM
However the original comment by Dusty is a few comments prior to that one.
I got curious about the ghost comments but wasn't seeing where it came from, thank you for the link SteveK.
To be fair, it does not appear that Stardusty was claiming that ancestors are contributing force to a sticking being moved. Rather, it looks as if he is denying that there is such a thing as an ongoing effect. And if there is no such thing as an ongoing effect, then indeed every physical cause/effect relationship is conceptually identical, with the sole difference being length of time and number of subsequent cause/effect "pairs" between them.
So, I think to summarize Stardusty, we would have something like this:
60 years after grandparents had a child, their grandchild moved a stick. Had the grandparents not had a child, the stick would have never moved.
6 years after parents had a child, he moved a stick. Had the parents not had a child, the stick would have never moved.
A child moves a stick. Had the child's nerves not carried impulses between the brain and hand, the stick would have never moved.
In all cases, Stardusty is (I think) saying the causes leading up to the child moving the stick are prior to the effect of the stick moving, so they are not categorically different from one another. And presumably, what appears to be an ongoing effect of the child waving the stick around is in fact a series of effects being caused by temporally prior causes. Thus, no essentially ordered series exists with a child moving a stick, as the ongoing effect is illusory when the details are examined in more precise detail.
Is that about right, Stardusty?
bmiller: "When will we get the TRUE explanation of Dusty's statement? / No one has told us how we got it wrong. So we must have it right."
What exactly isn't "TRUE" about Stardusty's explanation (below):
Stardusty: "The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount.
Removing any one of those causal "agents" prior to their propagation of causal influence would have prevented the effect.
Removing any one of those causal "agents" after they propagated their causal influence does not undo their effect.
The grandfather and the previous heartbeat and the previous nanometer of muscular contraction are all part of an accidental series.
Every series is an accidental series."
Be specific.
bmiller: ""Then go ahead and represent your position accurately. Tell me how you know that deceased relatives are moving sticks a "particular amount"?"
Your question indicates that you still want to assert that we are somehow arguing for something pushing something now (per AT physics), whereas we have steadfastly explained that events occur over time, and that the notion of instantaneous motion ("ARE moving sticks") is simply unsound.
So your question reveals that you don't understand how physical events occur, over time. And your failure to grasp this simple fact and use the terms of physical description properly employed can be seen in the awkward way in which you use your antiquated notions to describe our arguments.
For, like, the umpteenth time.
@Legion,
To be fair, it does not appear that Stardusty was claiming that ancestors are contributing force to a sticking being moved.
Perhaps not, but he specifically answered that they are contributing a "particular amount" of force to the stick being moved. He is logically stuck with that assertion or he will have to admit there are different kinds of causal series.
A child moves a stick. Had the child's nerves not carried impulses between the brain and hand, the stick would have never moved.
This is the sort of causal series that physics can theoretically provide some sort formula to compute the quantitative amount of force derived from the existing person. An essentially ordered series.
60 years after grandparents had a child, their grandchild moved a stick. Had the grandparents not had a child, the stick would have never moved.
Yes, this is an accidentally ordered series. Physics cannot and does not provide a formula for the force derived from deceased relatives being that this is a different type of causal series.
In all cases, Stardusty is (I think) saying the causes leading up to the child moving the stick are prior to the effect of the stick moving, so they are not categorically different from one another.
But if they are *not* categorically different, then physics should likewise be able to theoretically provide some mathematically derived amount of force from each mover just as in the case of the existing child's movement including all the deceased male relatives. Physics does not have any such theory, so they must be different.
So.
Science claims to be able to exhaustively account for the entire amount of force that the existing child is exerting solely due to his existing form and matter. There is no mathematical expression in this event related to a great grandfather's begetting sons. If the great grandfather's contribution was of the same category, it too should have a mathematical expression we could use to calculate that force.
Thus they are categorically different.
If you read the whole thread, I pressed him repeatedly to give me ratio or amount of force deceased relatives apply to presently moving sticks in an attempt to get him to see this. Want to guess if he did? :-)
@legion
If I'm understanding your attempt to summarize what Dusty said, it would mean my statements (4) and (5) above are accurate. The reason being "all series are accidental" - the keyword being ALL. The same is true regarding my example of the glass where I concluded that example with a statement similar to Dusty's
Me: "The furnace and the machine were all instrumental in that particular glass cooling & solidifying a particular amount."
I've been told that I'm stupid and unhinged to think this is what they mean, yet this appears to be exactly what they mean.
When will Cal and Dusty tell us what it means?
@Cal,
What exactly isn't "TRUE" about Stardusty's explanation (below):
See my reply to Legion.
Your question indicates that you still want to assert that we are somehow arguing for something pushing something now (per AT physics), whereas we have steadfastly explained that events occur over time, and that the notion of instantaneous motion ("ARE moving sticks") is simply unsound.
Actually my question is an attempt to get you to explain exactly how things that don't exist cause material things that do exist to move. Physics can exhaustively account for all the force used by a man to move a stick using only the existing form and matter of the man.
I agree that there is a sense that deceased ancestors are responsible for the existence of the man and that the man would not be here moving a stick if not for those ancestors. But that is different from giving an explanation for what force is physically moving the stick now.
Motion is the description of how an existing thing changes wrt time. That is why things that don't exist, don't move and so cannot cause things that do exist to move.
From Feser's blog on July 19th @ 7:14am
Dusty: Consider the father, as you wish. What happened with the father?
He had sex with the mother, and in physical motion muscles contracted to pump a fluid, in physical motion cells swam and joined, intermolecular forces caused a chemical reaction of DNA joining, cells multiplied with duplicate chemical reactions due to intermolecular forces, a young heart began to beat, blood cells were pumped, and pumped, and pumped, until one day a particular blood cell was pumped to a particular muscle to deliver some molecules of oxygen that propagated the chemical energy that moved the stick a particular nanometer.
All in an unbroken "accidental" series."
Keep going back in time and - yup - the Big Bang moved the sticks. Delusional is the kindest word I can use to describe this.
@bmiller
"But that is different from giving an explanation for what force is physically moving the stick now."
Very different. The science deniers tell us that they know how causality works. They aren't demonstrating that knowledge. The teeing up of a golf ball is responsible for your ball being launched toward the green, but NOT causally responsible.
@bmiller
I believe it was you that informed the science deniers that motion has a beginning, middle and end. When a motion ends something new comes along to start a new motion. Each motion is separate and each has essentially ordered objects in the series.
Delusional Dusty thinks it's all one, long unbroken motion. No scientific journal says this. No science class teaches this. In fact, they say and teach the opposite because it's obvious.
Sad!
bmiller: "Perhaps not, but he specifically answered that they ARE contributing a "particular amount" of force to the stick being moved. He is logically stuck with that assertion or he will have to admit there are different kinds of causal series."
You lie.
Stardusty: "The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat WERE all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
Consistently lying makes bmiller consistently stupid.
Cal
Which of course means that neither one are causing the motion of the sticks. Which means they are not relevant to the FW argument. Thanks for confirming I was correct about that.
@Little Cal,
You lie.
Another typical response from a projector who claimed he'd read the list I posted. Ho hum.
But please explain what you think I got wrong.
Do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do notsupply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks? If so, I agree.
Or do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks? If so, I disagree.
The relevant question is exactly what is causing the force moving the stick. I claim that only an existent being can cause the force. Do you claim otherwise?
Sort of the same thing SteveK pointed out.
@SteveK,
Delusional Dusty thinks it's all one, long unbroken motion. No scientific journal says this. No science class teaches this. In fact, they say and teach the opposite because it's obvious.
Yes, I think the problem is that Strawdusty has some notion in his mind that motion has an existence of it's own separate from actual materially existing things.
Don't know why, but that's the best I can figure. I'd be happy to discuss that with him in a rational manner, but it seems he doesn't like to do it that way.
Legion of Logic said... September 13, 2017 11:32 AM
" In all cases, Stardusty is (I think) saying the causes leading up to the child moving the stick are prior to the effect of the stick moving, so they are not categorically different from one another. And presumably, what appears to be an ongoing effect of the child waving the stick around is in fact a series of effects being caused by temporally prior causes. Thus, no essentially ordered series exists with a child moving a stick, as the ongoing effect is illusory when the details are examined in more precise detail.
Is that about right, Stardusty?"
--Hallelujah!!!
Can I have an amen?-)
Now, if you disagree then please state where exactly my analysis is mistaken. Since you have taken the time and expended the effort to accurately state my position I will do my best to read your words as accurately as I am able and respond to them in good faith in reciprocation for the good faith you have displayed with respect to my words.
Dusty: "Now, if you disagree then please state where exactly my analysis is mistaken."
Your statements are about the sequence of events, not about causality. My example of the glass makes your stupidity all the more clear. A furnace that heats is not responsible (causally) for that glass cooling a particular amount. (Duh!)
Sad!
@Strawdusty,
Now, if you disagree then please state where exactly my analysis is mistaken.
You can see that here: September 13, 2017 1:13 PM.
A man moves a stick by applying force. Science claims to be able to attribute 100% of that force to the existing man. None to deceased ancient ancestors.
So the type of series causing the man-hand-stick motion is fundamentally different than the series of men begetting sons. The first is referred to as an essentially ordered series while the second is referred to as an accidentally ordered series.
Post a Comment